RESEARCH on (mis)GOVERNANCE in CORPORATES and STARTUPS

Date - 9/5/23 - 19/5/23

Reference - Mahesh Murthy article ( sent on Whatsapp)

Cover - (12 Stories)

● Zilingo
● Enron
● Satyam
● ILFS
● GoMechanic
● Stayzilla
● FTX
● Theranos
● Bharatpe
● Onecom
● Homigo
● Byjus

STORY 1 - ENRON
Players :
Enron involved several key individuals who played significant roles in the company's rise and
subsequent downfall. Some notable players of Enron include:

1. Kenneth Lay: Kenneth Lay was the Chairman and CEO of Enron during its peak years.
He was one of the key architects of Enron's aggressive and complex business
strategies. Lay was charged and found guilty of multiple counts of securities and wire
fraud, but he passed away before sentencing.
2. Jeffrey Skilling: Jeffrey Skilling was the CEO of Enron from February 2001 until his
resignation in August 2001. He was known for his role in implementing Enron's
aggressive accounting practices and pushing for financial innovation within the company.
Skilling was found guilty on multiple counts of securities fraud, conspiracy, and insider
trading.
3. Andrew Fastow: Andrew Fastow served as Enron's Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and
was responsible for creating and overseeing Enron's complex network of
off-balance-sheet special purpose entities (SPEs). Fastow orchestrated various
fraudulent transactions that helped Enron conceal its debt and inflate its profits. He
pleaded guilty to multiple charges of conspiracy, fraud, and money laundering.
4. Arthur Andersen: Arthur Andersen was the accounting firm responsible for auditing
Enron's financial statements. It was found to have failed in its duty to identify and report
the fraudulent activities at Enron. The firm was indicted for obstruction of justice and
eventually collapsed due to its involvement in the scandal.
 These individuals, along with others involved in the fraudulent activities, faced legal
consequences, including convictions, fines, and imprisonment. The Enron scandal
serves as a stark reminder of the ethical and governance failures that can occur in corporate
environments and has had a significant impact on corporate governance practices and
regulatory ref

Ownership/Shareholding :
The big shareholders of Enron's 7 percent preferred stock included Franklin Advisers, a money
management firm, and insurance companies like TransAmerica Life and New York Life.

Enron was a publicly traded company, and its ownership was distributed among a large number
of shareholders. At its peak, Enron had a diverse shareholder base that included institutional
investors, individual investors, and employees who held Enron stock or stock options.

CEO: Kenneth L. Lay

Board Role :
·Ken Lay, Chairman and CEO.
·Jeff Skilling, COO and CEO.
·Andrew Fastow, CFO.
·Sherron Watkins, the Whistleblower.
·Lou Pai, CEO of Enron Energy Services (EES)
·Gray Davis, Governor of California.
·Richard Kinder, ex-COO and President.

In 2001, Enron’s Board of Directors had 15 members, several of whom had 20 years or more
experience on the Board of Enron or its predecessor companies.

The Board of Directors of Enron had the responsibility of overseeing the management and
operations of the company. However, during the Enron scandal, it was revealed that the board
failed in its duty to effectively monitor and provide proper governance.
The Board of Directors of Enron at the time of the scandal included several notable individuals,
including Chairman Kenneth Lay and CEO Jeffrey Skilling. These executives played a
significant role in the fraudulent activities and deceptive practices that led to the downfall of
Enron.

Summary :
Enron Corporation was an American energy, commodities, and services company based in
Houston, Texas.In 1985, Kenneth Lay merged the natural gas pipeline companies of Houston
Natural Gas and InterNorth to form Enron. Before its bankruptcy on December 2, 2001, Enron
employed approximately 20,600 staff and was a major electricity, natural gas, communications,
and pulp and paper company, with claimed revenues of nearly $101 billion during 2000.

The story of Enron Corp. depicts a company that reached dramatic heights only to face a
dizzying fall. The fated company’s collapse affected thousands of employees and shook Wall
Street to its core. At Enron’s peak, its shares were worth $90.75; just prior to declaring
bankruptcy on Dec. 2, 2001, they were trading at $0.26.

Enron traded in more than 30 different products,including oil and LNG transportation,
broadband, principal investments, risk management for commodities, shipping / freight,
streaming media, and water and wastewater. Products traded on EnronOnline in particular
included petrochemicals, plastics, power, pulp and paper, steel, and weather risk management.
Enron was also an extensive futures trader, including sugar, coffee, grains, hogs, and other
meat futures. At the time of its bankruptcy filing during December 2001, Enron was structured
into seven distinct business units.

Several of Enron’s executives were charged with conspiracy, insider trading, and securities
fraud. Lay, Enron’s founder, and former CEO was convicted on six counts of fraud and
conspiracy and four counts of bank fraud. Prior to sentencing, he died of a heart attack in
Colorado.

Detailed Story :
Enron scandal, series of events that resulted in the bankruptcy of the U.S. energy,
commodities, and services company Enron Corporation and the dissolution of Arthur Andersen
LLP, which had been one of the largest auditing and accounting companies in the world. The
collapse of Enron, which held more than $60 billion in assets, involved one of the biggest
bankruptcy filings in the history of the United States, and it generated much debate as well as
legislation designed to improve accounting standards and practices, with long-lasting
repercussions in the financial world.

The Enron scandal was an accounting scandal involving Enron Corporation, an American
energy company based in Houston, Texas. Upon being publicized in October 2001, the
company declared bankruptcy and its accounting firm, Arthur Andersen – then one of the five
largest audit and accountancy partnerships in the world – was effectively dissolved. In addition
to being the largest bankruptcy reorganization in U.S. history at that time, Enron was cited as
the biggest audit failure.

In February 2001 Skilling took over as Enron’s chief executive officer, while Lay stayed on as
chairman. In August, however, Skilling abruptly resigned, and Lay resumed the CEO role. By
this point Lay had received an anonymous memo from Sherron Watkins, an Enron vice
president who had become worried about the Fastow partnerships and who warned of possible
accounting scandals.
The severity of the situation began to become apparent in mid-2001 as a number of analysts
began to dig into the details of Enron’s publicly released financial statements. In October Enron
shocked investors when it announced that it was going to post a $638 million loss for the third
quarter and take a $1.2 billion reduction in shareholder equity owing in part to Fastow’s
partnerships. Shortly thereafter the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) began
investigating the transactions between Enron and Fastow’s SPEs. Some officials at Arthur
Andersen then began shredding documents related to Enron audits.

Many Enron executives were indicted on a variety of charges and were later sentenced to
prison. Notably, in 2006 both Skilling and Lay were convicted on various charges of conspiracy
and fraud. Skilling was initially sentenced to more than 24 years but ultimately served only 12.
Lay, who was facing more than 45 years in prison, died before he was sentenced. In addition,
Fastow pleaded guilty in 2006 .

On June 15, 2002, Arthur Andersen was found guilty of shredding evidence and lost its license
to engage in public accounting. Three years later, Andersen lawyers successfully persuaded the
U.S. Supreme Court to unanimously overturn the obstruction of justice verdict on the basis of
faulty jury instructions. But by then there was nothing left of the firm beyond 200 employees
managing its lawsuits.

In addition, hundreds of civil suits were filed by shareholders against both Enron and Andersen.
While a number of suits were successful, most investors did not recoup their money, and
employees received only a fraction of their 401(k)s.
The scandal resulted in a wave of new regulations and legislation designed to increase the
accuracy of financial reporting for publicly traded companies. The most important of those
measures, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002), imposed harsh penalties for destroying, altering, or
fabricating financial records. The act also prohibited auditing firms from doing any concurrent
consulting business for the same clients.

On September 20, 2000, a reporter at The Wall Street Journal bureau in Dallas wrote a story
about how mark-to-market accounting had become prevalent in the energy industry. He noted
that outsiders had no real way of knowing the assumptions on which companies that used
mark-to-market based their earnings. He also noticed that Enron was spending much of its
invested capital, and was alarmed by the large amounts of stock being sold by insiders. In
November 2000, he decided to short Enron's stock.[

On January 9, 2002, the justice department ordered a criminal proceeding against the business.
On January 15, 2002, the NYSE suspended Enron, and the accounting firm, along with Arthur
Andersen, was convicted of obstruction of justice.

The Enron corporation and its management resorted to an evil scheme and malpractice of the
off-balance-sheet mechanism. It created a special economic vehicle to hide the massive debt
from its external stakeholders, namely creditors and investors. The special purpose vehicle was
utilized to conceal the realities of accounting rather than focus on the operating results.
The corporation transferred some portion of assets that had rising marketable value to the
special economic vehicle, and in return, it took cash or notes. The special purpose vehicle then
utilized such stock to hedge an asset present on its balance sheet of Enron. It ensured that a
special purpose vehicle reduced the counterparty risk.
The formation of the special purpose vehicles can not be termed illegal, but compared with the
securitization techniques relating to debt, it could be termed as bad. Enron disclosed the
existence of special purpose vehicles to the investors and the public, but few people understood
the complexity of transactions done using the special purpose vehicles.

Enron assumed that the stock prices would continue to appreciate and that they would not
deteriorate or fail as hedge funds. The primary threat was that the special economic entities
were capitalized with only the corporation’s stock. If the corporation is compromised, then the
special economic entities won’t be able to hedge the deteriorating market price of such stocks.
Additionally, the Enron corporation had held significant conflicts of interest concerning the
special purpose vehicles.

End game / Status as on date :

Since Enron declared bankruptcy last fall, many aspects of corporate life--including chief
executive pay, corporate governance, SEC rules, stock options, stock analysts, and accounting
practices--have come under question. As a result of its financial scandal, Enron ended its
bankruptcy in 2004. The name of the entity officially changed to Enron Creditors Recovery
Corp., and the company's assets were liquidated and reorganized as part of the bankruptcy
plan. While some employees, like John D. Arnold, received large bonuses in the final days of
the company,Enron's shareholders lost $74 billion in the four years before the company's
bankruptcy ($40 to $45 billion was attributed to fraud).As Enron had nearly $67 billion that it
owed creditors, employees and shareholders received limited, if any, assistance aside from
severance from Enron. To pay its creditors, Enron held auctions to sell assets including art,
photographs, logo signs, and its pipelines.

A class action lawsuit on behalf of about 20,000 Enron employees who alleged mismanagement
of their 401(k) plans resulted in a July 2005 settlement of $356 million against Enron and 401(k)
manager Northern Trust. A year later the settlement was reduced to $37.5 million in an
agreement by Federal judge Melinda Harmon, with Northern Trust neither admitting or denying
wrongdoing.
In May 2004, more than 20,000 of Enron's former employees won a suit of $85 million for
compensation of $2 billion that was lost from their pensions. From the settlement, the
employees each received about $3,100.The next year, investors received another settlement
from several banks of $4.2 billion. In September 2008, a $7.2-billion settlement from a
$40-billion lawsuit, was reached on behalf of the shareholders. The settlement was distributed
among the main plaintiff, University of California (UC), and 1.5 million individuals and groups.
UC's law firm Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins, received $688 million in fees, the
highest in a U.S. securities fraud case. At the distribution, UC announced in a press release
"We are extremely pleased to be returning these funds to the members of the class. Getting
here has required a long, challenging effort, but the results for Enron investors are
unprecedented.

Profit & Loss :

Enron's financial statements during its fraudulent activities were heavily manipulated to deceive
investors and hide losses. The company used complex accounting techniques and
off-balance-sheet entities to inflate its reported profits and conceal its true financial position. As
a result, it is challenging to provide a straightforward and accurate account of Enron's actual
profit and loss figures.

At the height of its operations, Enron reported significant profits and appeared to be a highly
successful company. However, these reported profits were largely fictitious and did not reflect
the true financial condition of the company.

In October 2001, Enron announced a massive quarterly loss of $618 million and a restatement
of its financial results, revealing billions of dollars in hidden debt and losses. The company's
stock price plummeted, and it filed for bankruptcy shortly thereafter.

Ultimately, Enron's fraudulent accounting practices and misrepresentations resulted in

substantial losses for investors and stakeholders. Many employees lost their jobs, and investors
lost billions of dollars as the value of Enron's stock became virtually worthless.The Enron
scandal highlighted the need for improved financial reporting standards, stricter regulatory
oversight, and enhanced corporate governance practices to prevent such fraudulent activities in
the future.

Fundraises :
The exact amount of funds raised by Enron through its various fundraising activities is difficult to
determine with precision due to the complex and fraudulent nature of the company's financial
reporting. However, it's worth noting some key figures related to Enron's fundraising efforts:

Enron engaged in various fundraising activities during its existence, but it's important to note
that many of these activities were part of the company's fraudulent practices and deceptive
financial reporting. Enron used complex financial structures and off-balance-sheet entities to
raise funds and hide its true financial condition.

1. Debt Issuance: Enron issued billions of dollars' worth of debt securities to raise capital.
The company used its perceived strong financial position to attract investors and borrow
funds. The specific amount raised through debt issuances is challenging to ascertain, as
the actual financial condition of Enron was significantly different from what was portrayed
in its financial statements.
2. Stock Issuances: Enron's stock was highly valued during its peak, and the company
conducted multiple stock issuances to raise capital. The precise amount raised through
these stock issuances is not readily available, and it's important to note that the value of
Enron's stock dramatically declined once its fraudulent activities were exposed.
3. Off-Balance-Sheet Entities: Enron utilized off-balance-sheet entities, such as Special
Purpose Entities (SPEs), to raise funds and conceal debt. These entities allowed Enron
to transfer assets and liabilities off its balance sheet, giving the appearance of financial
stability and profitability. The total amount of funds raised through these entities is
difficult to determine accurately.
It's important to emphasize that the fundraising activities of Enron were part of its fraudulent
practices. The reported amounts raised may not accurately reflect the true financial position or
the actual funds available to the company. Enron's collapse and subsequent investigations
revealed that the financial statements and representations made by the company were highly
misleading and deceptive.

References : CHAT GPT , www.investopedia.com , en.wikipedia.org ,

www.britannica.com ,www.marketwatch.com , www.propertyweek.com , timesofindia.indiatimes.com ,
www.forbes.com , www.wallstreetmojo.com ,int.search.myway.com, www.econcrises.org,
www.acton.org ,scholarship.law.georgetown.edu

STORY 2 - ZILINGO
Players :
As of my knowledge the key players associated with Zilingo are:

1. Ankiti Bose: Ankiti Bose is one of the co-founders and the CEO of Zilingo. She
co-founded the company in 2015 and played a pivotal role in its growth and expansion.
2. Dhruv Kapoor: Dhruv Kapoor is another co-founder of Zilingo and serves as the
company's Chief Technology Officer (CTO). He is responsible for overseeing the
technological aspects of the platform.
These individuals, along with their dedicated team and employees, have contributed to the
growth and success of Zilingo. Please note that executive positions and key personnel may
have changed since my last update. It is advisable to refer to the official website or recent news
sources for the most up-to-date information on key players associated with Zilingo.
Some other players known to me are - Jim Perry, Aadi Vaidya, Marita Abraham

Ownership/Shareholding :
Sequoia India, Burda Capital, Sofina , Singapore's sovereign fund Temasek Holdings , Ankiti
Bose and Dhruv Kapoor

The exact ownership percentages of Zilingo are not publicly available. Zilingo is a privately held
company, and ownership information is typically not disclosed to the public unless the company
chooses to do so voluntarily or during certain financial transactions.
It's worth noting that ownership percentages can change over time due to various factors,
including fundraising rounds, investment deals, and dilution of ownership. For the most accurate
and up-to-date ownership information, it is recommended to refer to official company
announcements, public filings, or reliable sources that provide the latest information on Zilingo's
ownership structure.

CEO: Ankiti Bose

Board Role :
The specific board roles and composition of Zilingo may not be publicly available or may have
changed. As a private company, Zilingo may have its own board of directors or advisory board
to provide guidance and oversight to the company's operations and strategic decisions.
Typically, the board of directors of a company plays a crucial role in setting the overall direction,
making major corporate decisions, and ensuring compliance with legal and regulatory
requirements. They provide strategic guidance, monitor financial performance, appoint
executives, and safeguard the interests of shareholders.

Summary :
Zilingo, a play on the word "zillion," was established in 2015 by two founders of Indian origin,
Ankiti Bose and Dhruv Kapoor. The idea came from when Bose was on holiday in Bangkok and
noticed that many of the small and medium-sized shops had no online presence.The company
started off as a long-tail fashion marketplace leveraging Southeast Asia's growing internet
connectivity to bring small merchants from the street markets of Bangkok and Jakarta into
e-commerce .After beefing its distribution capabilities, Zilingo expanded focus towards B2B
opportunities across the supply chain with an eye on service opportunities the platform could
offer to transform a fragmented, inefficient, cash and tech-strapped value chain.

The focus towards B2B opportunities started with a suite of basic products to help merchants
and manufacturers manage their e-commerce business. This initially included inventory
management and sales tracking, and today the company has graduated to deeper services like
financing, sourcing and procurement, and a ‘style hunter’ for identifying upcoming fashion
trends.

In September 2017, Zilingo was shipping to eight countries and has seller hubs in Hong Kong,
Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia and Thailand, adding 5,000 new merchants in the
previous twelve months. By September 2019 the company generates 80% of its revenue from
its business-to-business operation of matching brands with suppliers in Southeast Asia and
South Asia, with aggressive moves to expand in the United States.
In 2019, the company raised $226 million in a Series D round from existing investors Sequoia
India, Burda Capital, Sofina with Singapore's sovereign fund Temasek Holdings joining the
tech-platform's capital table.The latest round took the tech-platform to US$308 million from
investors, making it one of Southeast Asia's highest capitalized startups.The company
announced that it planned to invest US$100 million to build out its fashion supply chains in the
US, as part of its accelerated growth plans in new markets such as Australia, Europe and the
Middle East.

Detailed Story :
Zilingo, founded in 2015 by Ankiti Bose and Dhruv Kapoor, is a Singapore-based e-commerce
company that specializes in fashion and lifestyle products. The company has had a notable
journey in the market, marked by growth, funding, and expansion. Here is a detailed story of
Zilingo:
1. Founding and Early Years (2015-2016):
● Ankiti Bose and Dhruv Kapoor launch Zilingo as a fashion and lifestyle
marketplace, targeting small and independent sellers.
● The platform aims to provide a digital space for sellers to showcase and sell their
products, while also offering customers a wide range of fashion options.
2. Seed Funding and Initial Growth (2016-2017):
● Zilingo secured $2 million in seed funding from investors, including Sequoia
Capital India.
● With the funding, Zilingo expands its operations, improves its platform, and
attracts more sellers and customers.
3. Series B Funding and Market Expansion (2017-2018):
● Zilingo raised $17 million in a Series B funding round led by Sequoia Capital
India and Burda Principal Investments.
● The company uses the funding to expand its presence in Southeast Asia, enter
new markets, and invest in technology and infrastructure.
4. Series C Funding and Strengthening Regional Presence (2018-2019):
● Zilingo secured $54 million in a Series C funding round led by Sofina and Burda
Principal Investments.
 ● The funding allows Zilingo to expand its product offerings, strengthen its
presence in Southeast Asia, and explore new growth opportunities.
5. Global Expansion and Series D Funding (2019-2020):
● Zilingo raised $226 million in a Series D funding round led by Sequoia Capital,
Temasek Holdings, and other investors.
● The company expands into new markets, including the United States and
Australia, focusing on growing its user base and scaling its operations.
6. Launch of Zilingo Asia Mall and Business-to-Business (B2B) Expansion (2020-2021):
● Zilingo launches Zilingo Asia Mall, a B2B platform that connects fashion brands
and manufacturers, streamlining the supply chain process.
● The company aims to provide a comprehensive ecosystem for the fashion
industry, catering to both business-to-consumer (B2C) and B2B needs.
Throughout its journey, Zilingo has focused on empowering small sellers, improving the online
shopping experience, and creating opportunities for growth in the fashion and lifestyle industry.
The company has successfully attracted significant funding, expanded into multiple markets,
and diversified its offerings.

The personal fallout was between Ankiti Bose and Sequoia’s Shailendra Singh, over the
direction of the company, the cash burn and the lack of any path to profitability, all dating back to
the focus on rampant growth that began in 2018. And it happened even as tensions between
Bose and the other cofounder Dhruv Kapoor escalated and allegations have also been raised
that Kapoor and other senior employees at the company buried complaints of sexual
harassment. Now, Bose is said to be exploring a lawsuit against Kapoor as well as a buyback of
Sequoia’s stake in the company. How did things
get so bad?

One look at the company’s past shows it was more of a house of cards, riddled with ideas and
strategies that lacked operational vision or any sort of planning. The tech platform was more or
less missing in the initial years, and overspending to market and promote the B2C fashion
vertical meant Zilingo burnt millions. Amid all this, founders clashed over many ideas and even
over alleged patterns of sexual harassment in the company.

But the charge now being leveled against Zilingo is that there was wilful fraud. At least that’s
what the board is saying, but we don’t know what the fraud was, how it happened and how it
evaded notice of the board and investors like Sequoia, Temasek, Burda, Beenext and other
major VCs is another major mystery.

In short, the Zilingo saga has snowballed from mismanagement and millions of dollars burnt to a
massive controversy that threatens to swallow the company whole. What will happen to the
500+ employees and will Zilingo become fodder for acquisition as VCs look to exit? Besides
this, there are some serious questions about VCs neglecting corporate governance processes
and not pushing for transparency, even as they now lay allegations against the very founders
they invested millions in.

End game / Status as on date :

Zilingo, a Singapore-based B2B fashion tech startup, valued at $1 billion in 2019, is set for
liquidation after a prolonged crisis. The countdown to the company’s demise started during an
AGM held on 10 February 2023, when the decision to initiate the dissolution process was made.

The process can take anything between 3 and 6 months. The once-promising company is being
laid to rest. Thereby hangs a cautionary tale, which is emerging in bits and pieces still.
But as the curtain drops on Zilingo—an ambitious attempt to bring together small traders of
Southeast Asia on a unified e-commerce platform, spearheaded by 30-year-old Indian-born
co-founder and former CEO, Ankiti Bose—it is important to consider some long-term
perspectives.
It is also important, for India’s unicorn ecosystem, to consider the potential impact of personal
conflicts and the influence they may have had and could have tomorrow, if it goes unchecked.
So, let’s go through part by part.

Although bits and pieces of information on the rise and fall of Zilingo and Bose have been
reportedly and selectively fed to the public, the media narrative depicts a lopsided picture, with
Bose tarred as a high-flyer who deliberately cultivated a high public image while committing
“financial irregularities.”

Today, Bose’s professional and personal reputation has been tainted by what sources claim was
a deliberate smear campaign mounted in mainstream media and social media platforms.

Top sources, however, say it reeks of personal vendetta. And now the plan to shaft Bose is
coming out in the open like an orange peeled taken out from a refrigerator for peeling.

The reality is vastly different. Investigations show that reports in the media tell only one part of
the downfall of Zilingo and the alleged involvement of Bose, in financial irregularities.

But now, as facts emerge, the truth cannot be hidden anymore.

The Zilingo story can only be understood if the alleged role played by Shailendra Singh, the MD
of Sequoia Capital India, in Bose’s suspension and eventual termination from the company she
founded.
Top sources in India and Singapore say it is a dark tale of personal ego, driven without any
checks within a mighty corporation, that seemed powerless to control him.

Profit & Loss :

Zilingo Global Private Limited is classified as a private subsidiary of a foreign company and is
located in Bangalore, Karnataka. Its authorized share capital is INR 20.00 cr and the total
paid-up capital is INR 19.74 cr.

Zilingo Global Private Limited's operating revenues range is Over INR 500 cr for the financial
year ending on 31 March, 2021. Its EBITDA has decreased by -24.82 % over the previous year.
At the same time, its book networth has increased by 55.94 %.
Here is a summary of financial information of ZILINGO GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED for the
financial year ending on 31 March, 2021.

● Revenue / turnover of ZILINGO GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED is Over INR 500 cr

● Net worth of the company has increased by 55.94 %
● EBITDA of the company has decreased by -24.82 %
● Total assets of the company has increased by 448.82 %
● Liabilities of the company has increased by 513.94 %

Fundraises :
Zilingo has raised significant funding since its inception. Here are some notable fundraise
rounds for Zilingo:

1. Series A Funding (2015): Zilingo raised $2 million in a Series A funding round led by
Sequoia Capital India and participated by other investors. The funding was used to
support the company's initial growth and development.
2. Series B Funding (2016): Zilingo secured $8 million in a Series B funding round led by
Venturra Capital and participated by Sequoia Capital India and SIG. The funds were
utilized to expand its business and strengthen its market presence.
3. Series C Funding (2017): Zilingo raised $54 million in a Series C funding round led by
Sofina, Burda Principal Investments, and Sequoia Capital India. The additional capital
allowed Zilingo to accelerate its growth, expand into new markets, and invest in
technology and infrastructure.
4. Series D Funding (2018): Zilingo secured $226 million in a Series D funding round led by
Sequoia Capital, Temasek Holdings, and other investors. The substantial funding helped
Zilingo to further expand its operations globally, enter new markets, and enhance its
platform capabilities.
5. Zilingo closed its last funding round on Jul 1, 2021 from a Debt Financing round.
These are some of the significant fundraise rounds that Zilingo has completed. It's worth noting
that funding amounts and investors can vary over time, and there may have been additional
funding rounds or investments not included in this summary.

References : CHAT GPT , www.cbinsights.com, inc42.com , en.wikipedia.org ,

pitchbook.com , app.dealroom.co , int.search.myway.com.

References/Links (min 10 per story) of other articles, P&L, Fundraise etc

STORY 3 - StayZilla
Players :

● Yogendra Vasupal: Yogendra Vasupal was one of the co-founders of Stayzilla and
served as its CEO. He was responsible for the overall strategy and direction of the
company.
● Sachit Singhi: Sachit Singhi was another co-founder of Stayzilla. He was responsible for
the company's technology and product development.
● Rupal Yogendra: Rupal Yogendra was also a co-founder of Stayzilla. She was
responsible for the company's finance and accounting functions.
● Ankur Mehrotra: Ankur Mehrotra joined Stayzilla as its Chief Business Officer in 2015.
He was responsible for the company's marketing, business development, and customer
acquisition strategies.
● Pranav Mehta: Pranav Mehta joined Stayzilla as its Chief Technology Officer in 2016. He
was responsible for the company's technology and product development functions.

These players, along with other key employees and investors, played important roles in the
growth and success of Stayzilla during its operations.

Ownership/Stakeholding -
The stakeholding percentages of Stayzilla's investors are not publicly available. However,
according to media reports, Stayzilla raised a total of $33.5 million in funding from investors
including Matrix Partners, Nexus Venture Partners, and Y Combinator.
The exact percentage of stakeholding for each investor would have depended on the terms of
their investment, such as the amount of funding provided, the valuation of the company at the
time of investment, and any additional terms negotiated between the parties. It is possible that
some investors held larger stakes in the company than others, depending on the specifics of
their investment.

Overall, while the exact stakeholding percentages of Stayzilla's investors are not publicly
available, it can be assumed that they held significant equity stakes in the company in exchange
for their funding.
The stakeholding details of Stayzilla, a now-defunct Indian online marketplace for homestays
and alternative accommodations, are not publicly available in detail. However, according to
media reports, Stayzilla raised a total of $33.5 million in funding from investors including Matrix
Partners, Nexus Venture Partners, and Y Combinator.
It is unclear what the exact stakeholding details of the company were for each investor.
However, it can be assumed that these investors held significant equity stakes in the company
in exchange for their funding. Following the company's abrupt shutdown in 2017, it is unclear
what happened to the equity stakes of these investors and what returns they may have
received.

CEO : Yogendra Vasupal

Board Role :
Stayzilla, being a private company, had a board of directors that provided oversight and
strategic guidance to the company's management team. The board of directors was responsible
for setting the overall strategic direction of the company, approving major initiatives and
investments, overseeing the company's financial performance, and ensuring compliance with
legal and regulatory requirements. The board also had the authority to hire and fire senior
executives, including the CEO, and to make other key management decisions.
The specific roles and responsibilities of the board members would have varied based on their
individual expertise and experience. However, overall, the board of directors played a critical
role in shaping the direction and success of Stayzilla during its operations.

The Board of Directors of Stayzilla would have been composed of a group of individuals
responsible for providing oversight and strategic guidance to the company's management team.
The specific members of the board of directors would have varied over time, but typically
included a mix of internal and external members, with the internal members being the
company's founders and senior executives and the external members being independent
directors with relevant expertise and experience.
Some of the individuals who may have served on the board of directors of Stayzilla include:

● Yogendra Vasupal: Co-founder and former CEO of Stayzilla

● Sachit Singhi: Co-founder of Stayzilla
● Rupal Yogendra: Co-founder of Stayzilla
● Ankur Mehrotra: Former Chief Business Officer of Stayzilla
● Pranav Mehta: Former Chief Technology Officer of Stayzilla
● Avnish Bajaj: Founder and Managing Director of Matrix Partners India
● Suvir Sujan: Co-founder and General Partner of Nexus Venture Partners

These individuals, along with other members of the board of directors, would have been
responsible for setting the overall strategic direction of the company, approving major initiatives
and investments, overseeing the company's financial performance, and ensuring compliance
with legal and regulatory requirements.

Summary :
Airbnb is one of the most successful chains of hosting people for homestays in the whole world,
with tie-ups with thousands of hotels and homeowners. But before Airbnb could start, India was
ahead of it with its own Airbnb named Stayzilla. It began in 2005 by Yogendra Vasupal and
fellow college-mate Sachit Singhi, where people could put up their homes for rental space for
travelers and host them.
The market for such ideas was fresh and free of competition, and they had done their research
that the Indian “stay” market needs a significant overhaul. There were problems for visitors that
booking stays in Tier 1 and Tier 2 cities without mediators was a tough task. India was still at the
brink of the digital revolution, and the internet was not a common space, and hosting the service
on the internet was a gamble.

In 2017, the firm took a hit, and the company decided to shut its operations, and they planned to
start it with a different business model. The cut-throat competition in the market had led to
significant changes in the travel sector in India, and they wanted to give the company a fresh
look. What was supposed to be a pause turned out to be a ban on the company as the founder
– Yogendra Vasupal was put behind bars for defaulting payments as high as Rs. 17.2 million.
Apart from this, co-founder Sachit Singhi received life threats in the form of a voodoo doll that
was delivered to him with a photo of his son and a note which read “The most special way to
say you care”.
The reasons behind this debt were that the company offered huge discounts, and the investors
gave them deadlines to pay back the money, and when the founder failed to do so,
imprisonment was the show stopper for Stayzilla. Yogendra Vasupal was later granted bail by
the Madras High Court and was told to deposit Rs 40 lakh with the court to establish bona fide
intentions.

Detailed Story :
Stayzilla was founded by Yogendra Vasupal, Sachit Singhi, and Rupal Yogendra in 2005. The
company was a privately held startup and the ownership was primarily held by its founders and
early investors. The founders held significant stakes in the company, with Yogendra Vasupal
serving as the CEO.
Stayzilla received funding from several investors, including Matrix Partners, Nexus Venture
Partners, and Y Combinator. These investors held equity stakes in the company in exchange for
their funding. However, following the company's abrupt shutdown in 2017, it is unclear what
happened to the ownership of the company and its assets. It is possible that the company's
investors may have taken ownership of the remaining assets or that the founders retained
ownership of any remaining assets after the shutdown. However, this information has not been
made publicly available.
Stayzilla was an Indian online marketplace for homestays and alternative accommodations that
was founded in 2005 by Yogendra Vasupal, Sachit Singhi, and Rupal Yogendra. The platform
allowed travelers to book stays in local homes, guesthouses, and small hotels across India.
Stayzilla operated as a peer-to-peer platform, connecting travelers with local hosts who were
looking to rent out their extra space.
The platform offered a range of accommodations, from budget-friendly options to luxury stays,
and had a strong focus on promoting sustainable and responsible tourism.
At its peak, Stayzilla had over 55,000 listings across more than 4,000 cities in India. The
company received significant funding from investors, including Matrix Partners, Nexus Venture
Partners, and Y Combinator.
However, in 2017, Stayzilla abruptly shut down its operations due to financial difficulties. The
company's founder, Yogendra Vasupal, was also arrested and detained by the police on charges
of fraud and cheating, which he denied. The case gained significant media attention and raised
concerns about the challenges faced by startups in India. Vasupal was later released on bail
and the case is still ongoing.
Overall, Stayzilla was a pioneering platform in India's alternative accommodation market,
offering unique travel experiences and promoting sustainable tourism. However, its sudden
shutdown and legal issues highlight the challenges and risks faced by startups in the country's
competitive and complex business environment.

The arrest of Yogendra Vasupal, Stayzilla’s co-founder, on alleged charges of cheating and
non-payment to vendors has caused “shock” to the start-up community. However, hard-nosed
investors are not at all surprised. They warn that it is only a question of time before the other
start-ups collapse in a similar fashion if they don’t pay attention to basic norms of doing
business.
While the arrest sparked outrage across India’s startup community, two reports from The News
Minute & Mint emerged later in the day with serious accusations against Stayzilla and its
founders. Aditya CS, has claimed that Stayzilla founders are fraudulent and the
company never conveyed any deficiency in services to them. The report also contained an audit
confirmation letter by Insara Technologies, the parent company of Stayzilla, acknowledging a
balance of INR 1,56,32,992 which was due to Jig Saw.

Jigsaw Solutions claimed that Stayzilla owed it approximately INR 1.7 crore (around USD
240,000) for services rendered. However, Stayzilla disputed the claim, stating that the vendor
had not delivered the promised services and that it had not received any invoices or payment
requests from the vendor.
The dispute between Stayzilla and Jigsaw Solutions escalated, and Jigsaw Solutions eventually
filed a complaint with the police, accusing Stayzilla of fraud and non-payment of dues. Vasupal
was arrested in connection with the case and detained in prison for a month before being
granted bail.

Vasupal denied the charges, claiming that he was being targeted by a disgruntled vendor. He
also accused the police of mistreating him while in custody. The case gained significant media
attention and highlighted the challenges faced by startups in India's highly competitive and
rapidly evolving business environment.
However, it's important to note that the exact details of the dispute between Stayzilla and Jigsaw
Solutions remain unclear, and the case against Vasupal was still ongoing as of mid-2

Homestay startup Stayzilla founder Yogendra Vasupal's highly publicized arrest last week raised
heated debates on social media. Prominent entrepreneurs and organizations like iSPIRT and
TiE were vocal about the systemic issues that founders have to deal with. As people close to the
matter are in the effort of getting Vasupal out on bail, stakeholders in the ecosystem are working
on helping startups deal with matters like vendor payments.
The Indian Private Equity and Venture Capital Association (IVCA) is planning to set up a
committee that will develop guidelines. “There is inherent risk in every business. A vendor
should know that credit is a risk they take while doing business. We only want stakeholders in
the ecosystem to be aware of what they are getting into,” said Gopal Srinivasan, chairman,
IVCA.
The government is said to be working on a fresh set of initiatives for startups, including rolling
out norms for resolution of companies that are facing financial stress within 90 days and new tax
proposals. This comes at a time when several companies are finding it tough to raise funds. “We
want to ensure that startups have access to debt and equity to grow. Various measures are
being discussed,“ DIPP secretary Ramesh Abhishek told TOI earlier.

End game/ Status as on date

Stayzilla, which was once one of India's largest online marketplaces for homestays and
alternative accommodations, shut down its operations abruptly in early 2017. There were
several factors that contributed to the company's failure, including:
● Increased Competition: One of the biggest challenges faced by Stayzilla was the intense
competition in the online travel industry. The entry of well-funded startups like Airbnb and
OYO Rooms into the Indian market made it difficult for Stayzilla to compete effectively.
● Cash Burn: Stayzilla had raised significant amounts of funding from investors, which it
used to fuel its growth. However, the company was burning through cash quickly, and it
struggled to achieve profitability. This led to increasing pressure from investors to show
results, which may have ultimately contributed to the company's decision to shut down.
● Strategic Missteps: Stayzilla made several strategic missteps that may have hurt its
growth prospects. For example, the company focused heavily on marketing and
 customer acquisition, but it did not invest enough in improving the quality of its platform
or its customer service. This led to complaints from both hosts and guests about poor
experiences on the platform.
● Legal Troubles: In early 2017, Stayzilla co-founder and CEO Yogendra Vasupal was
arrested and detained on charges of fraud and cheating. Vasupal denied the charges,
claiming that he was being targeted by a disgruntled vendor. However, the case gained
significant media attention and may have further hurt the company's reputation and
ability to operate.
In summary, a combination of intense competition, cash burn, strategic missteps, and legal
troubles contributed to the failure of Stayzilla.
Stayzilla's operations were abruptly shut down in February 2017, and the company did not have
a formal endgame or exit strategy. The company's co-founder and CEO, Yogendra Vasupal,
stated in a blog post at the time that the decision to shut down was made due to several factors,
including a challenging business environment, a lack of investor interest, and mounting financial
pressures.

Profit & Loss :

1. Revenue
● FY15 — INR 4.2 Cr
● FY 16 — INR 13.8 Cr ⇒ ~3.3x increase
2. Loss
● FY15 — INR 19.6 Cr
● FY 16 — INR 94.5 Cr ⇒ ~4.8x increase
3. Marketing Spend
● FY15 — INR 11.2 Cr
● FY 16 — INR 56 Cr ⇒ ~5x increase
So, essentially, they were burning 4 crores on marketing for every crore they made!

Fundraises -
In 2012, Stayzilla raised seed funding of INR 2.5 crores from a bunch of Angel investors.
They continued their funding efforts to raise $34 million from 2013-2016.

How much did StayZilla raise?

StayZilla raised a total of $43.5M.

References : CHAT GPT , www.wikifame.org , www.cbinsights.com , pitchbook.com ,

Tracxn.com , timesofindia.indiatimes.com , www.livemint.com ,economictimes.indiatimes.com
,www.businesstoday.in, timesnext.com , blog.stayzilla.com , buildd.co , www.failory.com

STORY 4 - SATYAM
Players :
Satyam Computer Services, now known as Mahindra Satyam after its acquisition by Tech
Mahindra, had several key players who played significant roles in the company's operations and
management. Some of the notable key players of Satyam Computer Services during its active
period include:

1. Ramalinga Raju: Ramalinga Raju was the founder and former Chairman of Satyam
Computer Services. He played a pivotal role in the company's growth and strategic
decisions.
2. B. Ramalinga Raju: B. Ramalinga Raju, the younger brother of Ramalinga Raju, was
also a key player in Satyam. He held various positions in the company, including the
Managing Director role.
3. Vineet Nayyar: Vineet Nayyar was appointed as the Chairman of Satyam Computer
Services after its acquisition by Tech Mahindra. He played a crucial role in leading the
company's turnaround and ensuring its operational stability.
4. C. P. Gurnani: C. P. Gurnani, also known as CP, was the CEO and Managing Director of
Tech Mahindra, which acquired Satyam. He played a key role in integrating Satyam into
Tech Mahindra and overseeing its operations.
These are some of the key players associated with Satyam Computer Services. It's worth noting
that the leadership and management team of the company may have changed over time, and
there may have been other important individuals who contributed to the company's success.

CEO : Ramalinga Raju

OWNERSHIP / SHAREHOLDING :
Prior to the accounting scandal and subsequent acquisition of Satyam Computer Services by
Tech Mahindra, the ownership percentage of Satyam was publicly traded on the stock market.
Shareholders held varying ownership percentages based on the number of shares they owned.
However, after the accounting scandal in 2009, the ownership and control of Satyam changed
significantly. Tech Mahindra acquired a majority stake in Satyam through an open auction
process conducted by the government-appointed board. Tech Mahindra acquired a 31% stake
initially and later increased its stake to a controlling majority.

Shareholding Pattern - Satyam Computer Services Ltd.(Merged)

Holder's Name No of Shares % Share Holding

NoOfShares 1176778691 100%

Promoters 501843740 42.65%

ForeignInstitutions 201590021 17.13%

NBanksMutualFunds 114100 0.01%

OtherCompanies 67850428 5.77%

 ForeignNRI 18366598 1.56%

ForeignIndustries 2500 0%

CentralGovt 3412095 0.29%

Others 3795124 0.32%

GeneralPublic 264400558 22.47%

FinancialInstitutions 45352525 3.85%

GDR 70051002 5.95%

Board Role :
Satyam Computer Services, now known as Mahindra Satyam after its acquisition by Tech
Mahindra, had a board of directors responsible for the governance and strategic direction of the
company. The specific roles and responsibilities of the board members may have varied over
time. However, the typical roles of the board of directors include:
1. Chairman: The Chairman of the board provides leadership and ensures effective
functioning of the board. They may also represent the company in external matters and
act as a liaison between the board and management.
2. Independent Directors: Independent directors are individuals who are not affiliated with
the company or its management. They provide an objective perspective and bring
diverse expertise to the board. Their role includes monitoring corporate governance
practices, offering advice, and representing the interests of stakeholders.
3. Executive Directors: Executive directors are typically senior executives within the
company who also serve on the board. They provide insights into the company's
operations and play a key role in executing strategic decisions.
4. Non-Executive Directors: Non-executive directors are individuals who do not have a
full-time operational role in the company but still serve on the board. They contribute
their expertise and experience to the decision-making process and provide oversight on
behalf of the shareholders.
The specific individuals who held board positions in Satyam Computer Services or Mahindra
Satyam can vary over time. For the most accurate and up-to-date information on the board
members and their roles during a specific period.

Summary :
Satyam Computer Services was founded in 1987 and by 2008 earned revenues of over $2
billion, employing 52,000 IT professionals across the world.] It was one of India's five top IT
companies, and focused on the enterprise segment. It had an extensive client list including 185
Fortune 500 companies.The company was the subject of what was called India's biggest
corporate scandal in January 2009 when then-chairman Byrraju Ramalinga Raju admitted in a
letter to the Securities and Exchange Board of India that the corporate accounts had been
falsified, adding approximately $1 billion to the company's cash and cash-related assets. The
government appointed a board to oversee the sale of the company.Tech Mahindra offered to
purchase a majority stake in April, 2009, and the company was rebranded as Mahindra Satyam
in June 2009.
Tech Mahindra announced its plan to merge with Mahindra Satyam on 21 March 2012, after the
boards of both companies gave their approval. The Bombay Stock Exchange, the National
Stock Exchange, and the Competition Commission of India (CCI) also approved. Shareholders
unanimously approved the move in January 2013.The merger ran into delays due to ambiguity
over jurisdiction between investigating agencies and the government, and two tax cases totaling
over ₹ 27 billion. On 11 June 2013 Andhra Pradesh High Court approved the merger, after the
Bombay high court gave its approval.
A new management structure was announced for the new entity, led by Anand Mahindra as
Chairman, Vineet Nayyar as Vice Chairman and C. P. Gurnani as the CEO and Managing
Director. The merger was announced to be complete on 25 June 2013, creating India's fifth
largest software services company with a turnover of US$2.7 billion. Mahindra Satyam
shareholders received two shares of Tech Mahindra stock for every 17 shares of Mahindra
Satyam stock they owned. Shares in the new entity began trading on 12 July 2013.

Detailed Story -
The founder of Satyam Computer Services was Ramalinga Raju. Raju started Satyam in 1987
in Hyderabad, India, with a team of just 20 software professionals. Under his leadership,
Satyam grew rapidly to become one of the largest IT services companies in India, with a global
workforce of over 50,000 employees.
However, Raju's reputation was tarnished in 2009, when he admitted to inflating the company's
profits and assets for several years, in what became known as the Satyam scandal. The
scandal led to Raju's arrest, as well as the resignation of the company's top management. Raju
was eventually convicted of several charges, including fraud and forgery, and was sentenced to
seven years in prison.
Despite the scandal, Raju is still considered a pioneer in the Indian IT industry, having played a
key role in putting India on the global map as a leading destination for IT services. However, his
actions in the Satyam scandal have also highlighted the importance of good corporate
governance and ethical business practices in the Indian corporate sector.

As of my knowledge cutoff date of September 2021, Satyam Computer Services no longer

exists as an independent company. It was acquired by Tech Mahindra in 2009 and was
subsequently rebranded as Mahindra Satyam. In 2013, Mahindra Satyam was merged with
Tech Mahindra, and the combined entity is now known simply as Tech Mahindra.
At the time of the Satyam scandal in 2009, Ramalinga Raju, the founder and then-chairman of
the company, held a 8.6% stake in Satyam. However, Raju's stake in the company was later
seized by the Indian government as part of its efforts to recover funds lost in the scandal.
It is unclear what the exact stakeholding percentages were for other investors or entities at the
time of the scandal, as the company's financial statements were found to be fraudulent.
However, following the acquisition of Satyam by Tech Mahindra, Tech Mahindra became the
majority shareholder in the company. As of September 2021, Tech Mahindra reported owning
approximately 35.8% of its own shares, according to its latest annual report.

The CEO of Satyam Computer Services during the time of the Satyam scandal in 2009 was
Ram Mynampati. Mynampati had been with the company since its early days and had served in
various leadership positions, including as the President and COO before being appointed as
CEO in June 2008.
After the scandal broke, Mynampati was one of the first senior executives to speak out about
the fraud and to pledge his cooperation in the investigation. He also played a key role in
stabilizing the company's operations and in helping to find a buyer for the beleaguered firm.
However, Mynampati was ultimately forced to resign from Satyam in January 2009, along with
the rest of the company's board of directors. Following his departure from Satyam, Mynampati
went on to serve in various advisory and board roles in the technology industry, including as an
advisor to the National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM) and as a
board member of Cyient, a global engineering and technology solutions company.

The new board was composed of several prominent business leaders and industry experts,
including Kiran Karnik (former President of NASSCOM), C. Achuthan (former Chairman of the
National Stock Exchange), and S. Balkrishna Mainak (former Chairman of Life Insurance
Corporation of India).
The Satyam scam was a massive accounting fraud that was perpetrated by the founder and
chairman of Satyam Computer Services, Ramalinga Raju. In January 2009, Raju confessed to
having falsified the company's financial statements for several years, inflating revenues and
profits, and creating fictitious assets and cash balances.
The fraud came to light when Satyam attempted to acquire two companies, and the deal fell
through due to concerns about the accuracy of Satyam's financial statements. This led to an
investigation by Indian authorities, which uncovered evidence of the fraud.

The scam had far-reaching consequences, leading to the resignation of the entire board of
directors, the arrest of several senior executives, and a significant drop in investor confidence in
India's IT industry. The Indian government appointed a new board of directors to oversee
Satyam's affairs and to help find a buyer for the company.
Satyam was eventually acquired by Tech Mahindra, and the company was rebranded as
Mahindra Satyam. The scandal led to significant regulatory reforms in India, including the
introduction of new corporate governance and accounting standards.

The board of directors of Satyam Computer Services played a critical role in the governance
and management of the company. The board was responsible for overseeing the company's
strategy, operations, and financial performance, and for ensuring that the company complied
with applicable laws and regulations.
However, during the time of the Satyam scandal in 2009, the board of directors was found to
have failed in its duty to provide effective oversight of the company's affairs. The board was
accused of ignoring warning signs of the fraud and of failing to ask probing questions about the
company's financial statements.
Following the revelation of the scandal, the entire board of directors, including the Chairman,
Ramalinga Raju, resigned from the company. The Indian government subsequently appointed a
new board of directors to oversee the affairs of Satyam and to help find a buyer for the
company.

The new board of directors played a critical role in stabilizing Satyam's operations and in
facilitating its acquisition by Tech Mahindra. The board also implemented a range of corporate
governance reforms to ensure that the company was managed in a more transparent and
accountable manner.
The board of directors (BOD) of Satyam Computer Services at the time of the Satyam scandal
in 2009 was composed of several prominent business leaders and industry experts. However,
following the revelation of the fraud, the entire board resigns en masse, as they were found to
have failed in their duty to provide effective oversight of the company's affairs.
PricewaterhouseCoopers affiliates served as independent auditors of Satyam Computer
Services when the report of scandal in the account books of Satyam Computer Services broke.
The Indian arm of PwC was fined $6 million by the SEC (US Securities and Exchange
Commission) for not following the code of conduct and auditing standards in the performance of
its duties related to the auditing of the accounts of Satyam Computer Services. In 2018, SEBI
(Securities and Exchange Board of India) barred Price Waterhouse from auditing any listed
company in India for 2 years, saying that the firm was complicit with the main perpetrators of the
Satyam fraud and did not comply with auditing standards. SEBI also ordered disgorgement of
over Rs 13 crore wrongful gains from the firm and 2 partners. PwC announced their intent to get
a stay order.
"We are obviously shocked by the contents of the letter. The senior leaders of Satyam stand
united in their commitment to customers, associates, suppliers and all shareholders. We have
gathered together at Hyderabad to strategize the way forward in light of this startling revelation."

● On 10 January 2009, the Company Law Board decided to bar the current board of
Satyam from functioning and appoint 10 nominal directors. "The current board has failed
to do what they are supposed to do. The credibility of the IT industry should not be
allowed to suffer." said Corporate Affairs Minister Prem Chand Gupta. Chartered
accountants regulator ICAI issued show-cause notice to Satyam's auditor
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) on the accounts fudging. ICAI President Ved Jain said:
"We have asked PwC to reply within 21 days.
● Also on 10 January 2009, the same day, the Crime Investigation Department (CID) team
picked up Vadlamani Srinivas, Satyam's then-CFO, for questioning. He was arrested
later and kept in judicial custody.
● On 11 January 2009, the government nominated noted banker Deepak Parekh, former
NASSCOM chief Kiran Karnik, and former SEBI member C Achuthan to Satyam's board.
● Analysts in India have termed the Satyam scandal India's own Enron scandal. Some
social commentators see it more as a part of a broader problem relating to India's
family-owned corporate environment.
● Satyam's shares fell to 11.50 rupees on 10 January 2009, their lowest level since March
1998, compared to a high of 544 rupees in 2008. On the New York Stock Exchange,
Satyam shares peaked in 2008 at US$29.10. By March 2009, they were trading around
US$1.80.[
● On 14 January 2009, Price Waterhouse, the Indian division of PricewaterhouseCoopers,
announced that its reliance on potentially false information provided by the management
of Satyam may have rendered its audit reports "inaccurate and unreliable".
● On 22 January 2009, CID told in court that the actual number of employees is only
40,000 and not 53,000 as reported earlier and that Mr. Raju had been allegedly
withdrawing ₹200 million (US$3 million) every month for paying these 13,000
non-existent employees. The Indian government designated A. S. Murthy to become the
new CEO of Satyam effective 5 February 2009. Special advisors were also appointed,
Homi Khusrokhan of Tata Chemicals and Chartered Accountant T. N. Manoharan.
● On 4 November 2011, the Supreme Court granted bail to Ramalinga Raju, as well as two
others accused in the scandal, since the investigation agency CBI had failed to file a
charge sheet, despite having already had 33 months (from the time of Raju's arrest) to
do so.
● On 15 September 2014, the special CBI court hearing the case asked the concerned
parties to appear before the court on 27 October 2014. Date of judgment was to have
been indicated later on that day.
 ● On 9 April 2015, Raju and nine others were found guilty of collaborating to inflate the
company's revenue, falsifying accounts and income tax returns, and fabricating invoices,
among other findings, and sentenced to seven years imprisonment by Hyderabad court.
Kunjumani and his brother were also fined by the court 55 million rupees (US$883,960)
each.

End game / Status as on date :

The Satyam scam is considered one of the biggest corporate frauds in India's history, and it
highlighted the need for stronger corporate governance, better accounting standards, and more
effective oversight of companies by regulators and investors.
Here is the end story of Satyam with dates:
● January 2009: Satyam founder and chairman Ramalinga Raju confesses to having
falsified the company's financial statements for several years.
● January 2009: Indian authorities launch an investigation into the fraud.
● January 2009: The entire board of directors of Satyam resigns.
● February 2009: The Indian government appoints a new board of directors to oversee the
company's affairs and to help find a buyer for the company.
● April 2009: Tech Mahindra, a leading Indian IT services company, emerges as the
successful bidder for Satyam.
● June 2009: Satyam is officially acquired by Tech Mahindra and is rebranded as Mahindra
Satyam.
● July 2013: Mahindra Satyam merger with Tech Mahindra to create one of the largest IT
services companies in India, known as Tech Mahindra Limited.
● Present day: Tech Mahindra Limited continues to provide a range of IT services to clients
around the world.
The Satyam scandal remains one of the biggest corporate frauds in India's history and has had
far-reaching consequences for the country's business community. The case has highlighted the
need for stronger corporate governance, better accounting standards, and more effective
oversight of companies by regulators and investors.

Profit & Loss -

Rs (in Crores)

Mar'12 Mar'11 Mar'10 Mar'09 Mar'08

12Months 12Months 12Months 12Months 12Months

INCOME:

Sales Turnover 5964.30 4776.10 5107.60 8432.50 8137.28

Excise Duty .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

NET SALES 5964.30 4776.10 5107.60 8432.50 8137.28

Other Income 390.0000 283.7000 69.2000 10.6000 277.8700

TOTAL INCOME 6354.30 5059.80 5176.80 8443.10 8415.15

EXPENDITURE:

Manufacturing Expenses 64.00 71.90 224.30 589.80 83.79

Material Consumed .00 .00 1.00 154.90 .00

Personal Expenses 3635.40 3276.00 3731.00 5592.70 4964.84

Selling Expenses .00 .00 61.00 117.30 87.51

Administrative Expenses 1289.40 985.60 899.20 2142.50 1170.83

Expenses Capitalised .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

Provisions Made .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

TOTAL EXPENDITURE 4988.80 4333.50 4916.50 8597.20 6306.97

Operating Profit 975.50 442.60 191.10 -164.70 1830.31

EBITDA 1365.50 726.30 260.30 -154.10 2108.18

Depreciation 149.40 149.90 190.80 297.20 137.94

Other Write-offs .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

EBIT 1216.10 576.40 69.50 -451.30 1970.24

Interest 11.20 9.20 25.40 39.00 5.94

EBT 1204.90 567.20 44.10 -490.30 1964.30

Taxes 53.90 53.70 16.20 150.70 226.12

Profit and Loss for the Year 1151.00 513.50 27.90 -641.00 1738.18

Non Recurring Items 51.80 -641.10 -99.10 -1073.80 -22.44

Other Non Cash Adjustments .00 .00 .00 -6221.20 .00

Other Adjustments .00 .00 .00 .80 .00

REPORTED PAT 1202.80 -127.60 -71.20 -7935.20 1715.74

KEY ITEMS
Preference Dividend .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

Equity Dividend .00 .00 .00 67.40 234.89

Equity Dividend (%) .00 .00 .00 50.00 175.16

Shares in Issue (Lakhs) 11767.98 11765.66 11761.86 6738.95 6704.79

EPS - Annualised (Rs) 10.22 -1.08 -.61 -117.75 25.59

Rs (in Crores)

Fundraises -
The Fundraises by Satyam are:
Birla Sun Life (Rs 111. 88 crore), ICICI Prudential (Rs 22.68 crore), Franklin Templeton (Rs
100.37 crore), HDFC Asset Management (Rs 190.45 crore), UTI Asset Management (Rs 85.97
crore), Canara Robeco (Rs 6.14 lakh), ICICI Prudential (Rs 698.67 crore), ICICI Lombard (Rs
1.53 crore), Reliance Life Insurance (Rs 5.94 crore), HDFC Standard Life Insurance (Rs 218.07
crore), SBI Life Insurance (Rs 22.84 crore). SBI Funds Management (Rs 26.5 crore), Metlife
India Insurance (Rs 23.76 crore), Fidelity Fund Management (Rs 102.88 crore) and Max New
York Life Insurance (Rs 18.36 lakh)

References - CHAT GPT , en.wikipedia.org , int.search.myway.com

STORY 5 - GO MECHANIC
Players :
● Amit Bhasin
● Kushal Karwa
● Nitin Rana
● Rishabh Karwa
● Nitin Gupta
These co-founders are also the key decision-makers and executives at GoMechanic. In addition
to the co-founders, GoMechanic has received funding from various investors, including Sequoia
Capital India, Chiratae Ventures, Orios Venture Partners, and some other investors.

Ownership / Shareholding -
● Sequoia Capital at 26.89 per cent ownership.
● Orios Venture Partners, the second largest stakeholder with 17.1 per cent.
● Tiger Global owns 10.03 per cent of the company
● Investors including Chiratae Ventures, Elina Investments and Brand Capital together
owns 11.2 per cent stake.
● The company’s founders, Amit Bhasin, Kushal Karwa, Nitin Rana and Rishabh Karwa,
together own 25.5% of the company.
CEO - Amit Bhasin

Board Role -
GoMechanic's board members include Amit Bhasin (Director), Kushal Karwa (Director), Nitin
Rana (Director), Rishabh Karwa (Director).

The board of directors of Satyam Computer Services was responsible for overseeing the
company's operations and ensuring that it was being run in compliance with the law and ethical
business practices. The board had several key roles and responsibilities, including:
● Setting the strategic direction and goals of the company
● Appointing and overseeing the management team, including the CEO and other senior
executives
● Ensuring the company was complying with all legal and regulatory requirements
● Reviewing and approving the company's financial statements and other key disclosures
● Monitoring the company's financial performance and risk management practices
● Approving major transactions and investments
● Representing the interests of the company's shareholders
In the case of the Satyam scandal, the board failed to exercise effective oversight and did not
fulfill its responsibilities. The board did not question the irregularities in the company's financial
statements, and several members were found to have been complicit in the fraud. Following the
scandal, the Indian government dissolved the board and appointed a new board to oversee
Satyam's affairs until it was acquired by Tech Mahindra.

Summary -
GoMechanic is a technology-enabled car repair and maintenance startup based in India. It was
founded in 2016 by Amit Bhasin, Kushal Karwa, Nitin Rana, Rishabh Karwa, and Nitin Gupta.
The company provides a range of services, including car servicing, repairs, and inspections,
through its network of partner garages.
GoMechanic aims to provide high-quality, affordable car repair and maintenance services to
customers across India. The company leverages technology to streamline its operations and
optimize its supply chain, which allows it to offer services at lower prices than traditional
brick-and-mortar garages.
Customers can book services online through GoMechanic's website or mobile app, and the
company also offers doorstep pick-up and drop-off of vehicles. GoMechanic provides
transparent pricing, with no hidden costs or charges, and offers a warranty on all services
provided.

The investors of GoMechanic were recently made aware by the company’s founders of the
serious inaccuracies in the company’s financial reporting. We are deeply distressed by the fact
that the founders knowingly misstated facts, including but not limited to the inflation of revenue,
which the founders have acknowledged. All of this was kept from investors. The investors have
jointly appointed a third-party firm to investigate the matter in detail, and we will be working
together to determine the next steps," major investors of the company said in a joint statement.
GoMechanic offers an online car servicing platform intended to assist people to schedule their
car servicing online.
Detailed Story -
For car owners, getting their vehicles serviced can be a harrowing task. Most prefer authorized
service centers rather than the more affordable local mechanics because of the latter’s
uncertain quality and lack of transparency in services.
To address this problem, Nitin Rana, Amit Bhasin, Rishabh and Kushal Karwa founded
GoMechanic in April 2016. “It’s an online platform where people can book quick, affordable and
quality servicing of their cars,” says Rana. The Gurugram-based startup leverages technology to
assist car owners find repair and maintenance providers, while also partnering with service
providers to train them and provide original spare parts.

“The first six months were tough, but we made a breakthrough with our contract with Uber for
2,500 cars in Delhi-NCR,” says Rishabh Karwa.

“Sequoia India first invested in GoMechanic a year ago. We found the idea of organizing the
fragmented multi-billion dollar car repair industry fascinating. The company has grown manifold
since then, earning the trust of thousands of car owners. We are excited about its future as it
expands to new cities and launches additional business lines,” says Abhishek Mohan, vice
president, Sequoia Capital India.

In 2019, GoMechanic raised ₹35 crore in a Series A round, led by Sequoia Capital and Orios
Venture Partners. In December, it raised a further ₹105 crore from Chiratae Ventures and their
existing investors.
Automobile after-sales service startup GoMechanic co-founder Amit Bhasin on Wednesday
admitted to errors in financial reporting, following which a forensic audit has been ordered and a
business restructuring undertaken which will see 70 per cent of the 1,000-odd workforce being
laid off.
Nearly two years after it raised a mammoth $42 million in funding, it emerged that GoMechanic
cooked its financial books by inflating revenues.
In a post on LinkedIn, Amit Bhasin said founders got "carried away" in their quest for exploring
opportunities to grow.
Automobile after-sales service startup GoMechanic co-founder Amit Bhasin on Wednesday
admitted to errors in financial reporting, following which a forensic audit has been ordered and a
business restructuring undertaken which will see 70 per cent of the 1,000-odd workforce being
laid off.
Nearly two years after it raised a mammoth $42 million in funding, it emerged that GoMechanic
cooked its financial books by inflating revenues.
In a post on LinkedIn, Amit Bhasin said founders got "carried away" in their quest for exploring
opportunities to grow.
The platform provides options to book services such as denting and painting, exterior and
interior car care services, and cashless insurance repairs.
Services
● Periodic services
GoMechanic offers the following under periodic services: basic services, standard
services, comprehensive services, front brake pad, front brake disc, rear brake pads,
rear brake shoes, disk turning, and brake drums turning.
● AC service and repair
GoMechanic offers the following under AC service and repair: regular AC service,
high-performance AC service, cooling coil replacement, condenser replacement,
 compressor replacement, V-belt replacement, radiator replacement, and radiator flush
and clean.
● Car spa and cleaning
GoMechanic offers the following under car spa and cleaning: car spa, deep interior
cleaning, rat/pest repellent treatment, sunroof service, paint protection film, and silencer
coating.
● Lights and fittings
GoMechanic offers the following under lights and fittings: indicators, fog lights, and horn
replacement
● Denting and painting
`GoMechanic offers the following under denting and painting: front bumper replacement,
bonnet replacement, rear bumper replacement, boot paint, full body dent paint, alloy
paint, door, panel, fender and running board paint.
● Insurance services
GoMechanic offers the following under insurance services: doorstep accidental
inspection, windshield replacement, towing, tire replacement, and insurance claim.
● Custom repair
GoMechanic offers the following under custom repair: engine scanning, complete
suspension inspection, car fluids check, radiator replacement, and radiator flush and
clean
● Batteries
GoMechanic offers the following under batteries: car battery replacement and alternator
replacement and repair
● Tires
GoMechanic offers the following under tires: tire replacement, complete wheel care, and
mud flaps replacement
● Detailing services
GoMechanic offers the following under detailing services: car rubbing and polishing,
ivory paint protection film, as well as silencer, teflon, ceramic, and anti rust underbody
coating services.
● Windshields and glass
GoMechanic offers the following under windshields and glass: front headlight, rear tail
light, fog light, front and rear windshield replacement, and door glass replacement.

End game / Status as on date :

As it raised funds, GoMechanic moved into new lines of business to build vertically-integrated
operations and overstretched itself during a tough time. The story is similar to Zilingo in many
ways, given the issues around revenue recognition in a cash-reliant space.Their problems
began when they entered the spare parts business. That was a logical step but this is a highly
unorganized space and old habits are hard to break,” says the founder of a rival automobile
repairs startup.Most transactions in the repair business are done in cash, whether it is minor
repairs or spares procurement. No one uses digital payments when buying spare parts and
GoMechanic had to fall in line with this,” the founder added.Of course, like all companies in the
automobile sector (mobility, transport tech included), GoMechanic was battered by the
pandemic. Given that personal mobility had come to a standstill for many months, its garages
were not seeing any cars except those required by essential services, which is what the
company turned to survive during 2020-2021.
 As per co-founder Kushal Karwa, in April 2020, the company was “doing around seven to eight
vehicles per day and repaired over 100 vehicles across various cities” in the first month of the
lockdown, a far cry from the 30,000 cars serviced every month pre-pandemic.
Despite the massive decline, GoMechanic was left with huge operational overheads, including
manufacturing of its private label spares, inventory pile-up, managing a marketplace and
thousands of garages and distribution centers.
Naturally, as the market and economy opened up, the company looked to raise funds to sustain
this scale and operational depth.

PROFIT & LOSS :

In FY22, GoMechanic reported losses of Rs 114 crore on operating revenues of Rs 90.5 crore,
per RoC filings. Things went further south for the start-up once stories of its financial
misreporting and fictitious garages surfaced.

FUNDRAISES -
Announced Date Transaction Name Number of Investors Money Raised Lead Investors

Jun 7, 2021 4 $35M Tiger Global

Series C - GoMechanic Management

Jun 18, 2020 1 — —

Series B - GoMechanic

Dec 29, 2019 4 ₹1.1B Chiratae Ventures

Series B - GoMechanic

Jan 23, 2019 1 $4.9M Sequoia Capital India

Series A - GoMechanic

Jan 1, 2019 1 — Alfa Ventures

Venture Round -
GoMechanic

Aug 23, 2017 2 — Orios Venture

Seed Round - GoMechanic Partners
Dec 8, 2016 1 $250K —
Seed Round - GoMechanic

REFERENCES - CHAT GPT , www.livemint.com ,www.moneycontrol.com ,

www.wikipedia.com

STORY 6 - THERANOS
Players :

Theranos was a health technology company founded by Elizabeth Holmes in 2003. The
company claimed to have developed a revolutionary blood-testing technology, but it later faced
serious legal and regulatory issues. Some of the key players associated with Theranos include:
1. Elizabeth Holmes: Elizabeth Holmes was the founder and CEO of Theranos. She gained
significant attention for her role in building the company and promoting its technology.
However, she faced legal charges related to fraud and deceptive practices.
2. Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani: Sunny Balwani was the former President and Chief Operating
Officer (COO) of Theranos. He worked closely with Elizabeth Holmes in the
management and operation of the company. Like Holmes, he also faced legal charges
related to fraud and deceptive practices.
3. David Boies: David Boies was a prominent attorney and partner at Boies Schiller Flexner
LLP. He represented Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes in various legal matters and
played a significant role in the company's legal strategy.
4. The Board of Directors: Theranos had a board of directors responsible for the
governance and oversight of the company. Some notable individuals who served on the
Theranos board include former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger,
former Secretary of Defense William Perry, and former U.S. Senators Sam Nunn and Bill
Frist.
These are some of the key players associated with Theranos. It's important to note that the legal
and regulatory issues surrounding Theranos led to significant changes in the leadership and
management of the company. As a result, the composition of the key players may have evolved
over time.

OWNERSHIP / SHAREHOLDING -
As Theranos was a privately held company, specific information about the stakeholding
percentages of individual investors and shareholders is not publicly available. Theranos
operated with a high level of secrecy and did not disclose detailed ownership information.
Elizabeth Holmes, the founder and former CEO of Theranos, was known to hold a significant
stake in the company. However, the exact percentage of her ownership is not publicly disclosed.
Theranos attracted investments from various venture capital firms and private investors. Some
notable investors included venture capital firms like DFJ (Draper Fisher Jurvetson), ATA
Ventures, and funds associated with the Walton family. However, the specific stakeholding
percentages of these investors have not been publicly disclosed.
It's important to note that Theranos faced significant legal and regulatory challenges, which led
to the dissolution of the company. As a result, the ownership and stakeholding structure of
Theranos may have changed or become irrelevant.

Some of the reported investors in Theranos included:

1. Elizabeth Holmes: Founder and CEO of Theranos.
2. Rupert Murdoch: Media mogul and founder of News Corporation.
3. Betsy DeVos: Former U.S. Secretary of Education.
4. Larry Ellison: Co-founder and chairman of Oracle Corporation.
5. Tim Draper: Venture capitalist and founder of Draper Associates.

CEO - Elizabeth Holmes

BOARD ROLE -
Theranos had a board of directors consisting of various individuals who provided oversight and
guidance to the company. Some of the notable individuals who served on the board of Theranos
at different points in time included:
1. Elizabeth Holmes: Founder and CEO of Theranos.
2. David Boies: Prominent attorney who served as legal counsel for Theranos.
3. William Foege: Former director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC).
4. Gary Roughead: Retired U.S. Navy Admiral.
5. James N. Mattis: Retired U.S. Marine Corps General and former U.S. Secretary of
Defense.
6. Richard Kovacevich: Former Chairman and CEO of Wells Fargo.

It's important to note that the composition of the board of Theranos may have changed over
time, and some members may have resigned or been replaced as the company faced legal and
regulatory challenges.
The Board of Directors (BoD) of Theranos had the responsibility of providing oversight, strategic
guidance, and decision-making for the company. The specific roles and responsibilities of the
BoD typically include:
1. Governance and Compliance: Ensuring compliance with legal and regulatory
requirements and maintaining effective corporate governance practices.
2. Strategic Planning: Participating in the formulation of the company's strategic direction,
long-term goals, and business plans.
3. Risk Management: Identifying and assessing risks that could impact the company's
operations, reputation, or financial performance, and implementing appropriate risk
management strategies.
4. Financial Oversight: Monitoring the company's financial performance, reviewing financial
statements, and ensuring financial controls and reporting practices are in place.
5. CEO Selection and Performance Evaluation: Appointing and evaluating the performance
of the CEO and top executives, and ensuring leadership continuity.
6. Stakeholder Relations: Representing the interests of shareholders and other key
stakeholders, and maintaining effective communication and relationships with them.
 7. Crisis Management: Providing guidance and support during times of crisis or significant
challenges faced by the company.
It's worth noting that the effectiveness and actions of the Theranos Board of Directors have
been subject to scrutiny and criticism in light of the company's controversies and subsequent
legal action
Theranos, a now-defunct health technology company, was privately held and did not publicly
disclose detailed information about its shareholding structure. However, some notable investors
were known to have held stakes in the company at various points in time.

Summary -
Theranos was a health technology company founded in 2003 by Elizabeth Holmes. The
company claimed to have developed a breakthrough blood-testing technology that could
revolutionize the medical industry. However, Theranos faced significant legal and regulatory
challenges and ultimately became embroiled in a scandal.
The downfall of Theranos began when investigative journalism exposed serious concerns about
the accuracy and reliability of its blood-testing technology. It was revealed that the company had
misled investors, regulators, and the public about the capabilities of its technology. Theranos'
claims of conducting a wide range of tests using a small amount of blood were called into
question.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged Elizabeth Holmes and the
former president of Theranos, Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani, with massive fraud in 2018. They were
accused of deceiving investors, doctors, and patients by making false claims about the
company's technology and financial performance.

Theranos faced multiple lawsuits and regulatory investigations, leading to its ultimate downfall.
The company was unable to deliver on its promises and faced significant reputational damage.
It eventually shut down its operations and faced bankruptcy. The Theranos scandal highlighted
the importance of transparency, accuracy, and regulatory compliance in the healthcare industry.
It served as a cautionary tale about the risks associated with inflated claims and unethical
practices in the pursuit of success.

Elizabeth Holmes and Sunny Balwani faced criminal charges and a high-profile trial that began
in 2021. The trial continues to unfold as they face allegations related to conspiracy and fraud.
Theranos was a health technology company founded in 2003 by Elizabeth Holmes. The
company claimed to have developed a breakthrough blood-testing technology that could
revolutionize the medical industry. However, Theranos faced significant legal and regulatory
challenges and ultimately became embroiled in a scandal.
The downfall of Theranos began when investigative journalism exposed serious concerns about
the accuracy and reliability of its blood-testing technology. It was revealed that the company had
misled investors, regulators, and the public about the capabilities of its technology. Theranos'
claims of conducting a wide range of tests using a small amount of blood were called into
question.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged Elizabeth Holmes and the
former president of Theranos, Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani, with massive fraud in 2018. They were
accused of deceiving investors, doctors, and patients by making false claims about the
company's technology and financial performance.Theranos faced multiple lawsuits and
regulatory investigations, leading to its ultimate downfall. The company was unable to deliver on
its promises and faced significant reputational damage. It eventually shut down its operations
and faced bankruptcy.

The Theranos scandal highlighted the importance of transparency, accuracy, and regulatory
compliance in the healthcare industry. It served as a cautionary tale about the risks associated
with inflated claims and unethical practices in the pursuit of success.
Elizabeth Holmes and Sunny Balwani faced criminal charges and a high-profile trial that began
in 2021. The trial continues to unfold as they face allegations related to conspiracy and fraud.

Detailed Story -
Theranos was a highly publicized and ultimately discredited health technology company that
became embroiled in a major scandal. Here is a detailed and pointed summary of the Theranos
scam:
● Bold Claims: Theranos, led by founder Elizabeth Holmes, promised to revolutionize the
medical industry with its blood-testing technology. The company claimed its device, the
Edison, could perform a wide range of tests with just a few drops of blood, offering faster,
cheaper, and more accessible diagnostics.
● Lack of Transparency: Theranos operated with a veil of secrecy, tightly controlling
information about its technology. The company avoided public scrutiny and shared
limited details with regulators, medical professionals, and investors.
● Exaggerated Technology: Investigations and whistleblowers revealed that Theranos'
technology was far from what it claimed to be. It was found that the majority of tests were
conducted using traditional lab equipment instead of the revolutionary Edison device.
● Inaccurate Test Results: Employees and insiders alleged that Theranos' technology
produced inaccurate and unreliable test results, posing serious risks to patients who
relied on those results for medical decisions.
● Deceptive Partnerships: Theranos struck partnerships with major companies like
Walgreens, promising to bring its blood-testing services to their stores. However, these
partnerships were built on false promises and misleading claims about the capabilities of
Theranos' technology.
● Regulatory Scrutiny: Following the investigations, regulatory bodies such as the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) found serious deficiencies and violations in
Theranos' laboratory practices, leading to sanctions and penalties.
● Legal Consequences: In 2018, the SEC charged Elizabeth Holmes and former Theranos
president Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani with fraud, alleging they deceived investors,
patients, and doctors. Holmes settled with the SEC, agreeing to pay fines and
relinquishing control of the company.
● Dissolution and Impact: As a result of the scandal, Theranos eventually dissolved, facing
lawsuits and a loss of trust from investors and the public. The case highlighted the need
for stringent oversight, transparency, and adherence to scientific standards in the
healthcare industry.

The Theranos scandal serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of unchecked hype, lack
of transparency, and ethical violations in the pursuit of disruptive innovations. It underscores the
importance of thorough due diligence, skepticism, and rigorous scrutiny when evaluating claims
made by companies in the healthcare sector.
It's worth noting that after the downfall of Theranos and legal proceedings, the company's
assets were liquidated, and the ownership structure likely underwent significant changes. As a
result, the specific shareholding percentages and ownership stakes of Theranos are not readily
available to the public.
The story of Theranos is a complex and controversial one, involving the rise and fall of a
promising health technology company. Here is a detailed narrative of key events and individuals
associated with Theranos:
● 2003: Elizabeth Holmes, a Stanford University dropout, founded Theranos with the vision
of revolutionizing the medical industry by developing a device that can perform a wide
range of blood tests using only a few drops of blood.
● 2004: Holmes secures initial funding for Theranos and begins assembling a team of
scientists and engineers to develop the technology.
● 2006: Holmes meets Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani, who becomes her romantic partner and
later serves as President and Chief Operating Officer of Theranos.
● 2010: Theranos gains attention and garners substantial investments, reaching a
valuation of billions of dollars. Holmes becomes a prominent figure in the tech and
healthcare industries.
● 2013: Theranos strikes a partnership with Walgreens, aiming to offer blood-testing
services in Walgreens stores.
● 2015: The Wall Street Journal publishes a series of investigative articles raising
questions about the accuracy and reliability of Theranos' technology. The reports
suggest that the company may have misled investors and patients about the capabilities
of its technology.
● 2016: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) conducts inspections of
Theranos laboratories and issues a scathing report, highlighting numerous deficiencies
and violations of laboratory standards.
● 2016: Theranos voids two years' worth of blood test results and faces legal and
regulatory actions. Investigations by various agencies, including the SEC and the
Department of Justice, are initiated.
● 2018: The SEC charges Theranos and Holmes with "massive fraud," alleging that they
raised hundreds of millions of dollars from investors through false and misleading
statements about the company's technology and financial performance.
● 2018: Holmes settles with the SEC, agreeing to pay a fine, relinquish control of the
company, and is barred from serving as an officer or director of a public company for ten
years. Theranos later dissolves and declares bankruptcy.
● 2021-2023: Elizabeth Holmes faces a federal trial on charges of wire fraud and
conspiracy.
● In early 2023, she was found guilty on multiple counts, and the sentencing is pending.

Throughout the Theranos saga, the company attracted prominent investors, including venture
capitalists, high-profile individuals, and major corporations. However, the revelations of alleged
fraud and the subsequent legal actions against Theranos led to the downfall of the company
and raised significant questions about corporate governance, medical ethics, and the role of
technology in healthcare.

It's important to note that the events and details of the Theranos story are subject to ongoing
legal proceedings, and the above account provides a general overview based on available
information up until September 2021. For a more comprehensive understanding, it is advisable
to refer to reputable news sources, books, articles, and documentaries dedicated to the topic.
The Theranos scandal had far-reaching implications, leading to increased scrutiny and
regulation of the healthcare and biotech industries. It highlighted the importance of accurate and
reliable testing methods and the potential consequences of fraudulent practices in the
healthcare field.
The downfall of Theranos serves as a cautionary tale about the risks of overpromising and
underdelivering, the importance of transparency, and the need for rigorous oversight and
regulation in the pursuit of revolutionary technologies.

End game / Status as on date :

The endgame of Theranos can be characterized by its downfall and subsequent dissolution.
After facing extensive scrutiny and legal challenges, the company's fraudulent practices and
misleading claims were exposed. Here is an overview of the endgame of Theranos:

1. Regulatory Actions: Theranos faced investigations and regulatory actions from various
agencies, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The CMS
conducted inspections and found severe deficiencies in Theranos' laboratory practices,
leading to sanctions and revocation of licenses.
2. Voiding Test Results: In 2016, Theranos voids two years' worth of test results due to
accuracy and reliability concerns. This action further eroded trust in the company's
technology and services.
3. Legal Consequences: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged
Theranos and founder Elizabeth Holmes with fraud in 2018. Holmes settled with the
SEC, agreeing to pay a fine, relinquish control of the company, and be barred from
serving as an officer or director of a public company for ten years. Legal proceedings
against Holmes continued, and in 2023, she was found guilty on multiple counts in a
federal trial.

Profit & Loss -

Theranos lost $16.2 million in 2010,
$27.2 million in 2011,
$57 million in 2012,
$92 million in 2013.
In 2013, things had “started to get a bit tight. Theranos’ continued losses and lack of revenue,
prosecutors showed a document they said was shared with investors; it projected $140 million
in revenue in 2014 and $990 million in 2015.

Fundraises -
Theranos raised significant funds during its operation, reaching a peak valuation of $9 billion.
The company attracted investments from various sources, including venture capital firms,
wealthy individuals, and partnerships with major companies. Some of the notable fundraising
rounds and investors in Theranos included:
● Early Investments: In the early stages, Theranos received investments from notable
venture capital firms such as Draper Fisher Jurvetson (DFJ), ATA Ventures, and
Continental Ventures.
 ● Investments from Walgreens: Theranos formed a partnership with Walgreens, a major
pharmacy chain, to offer blood testing services in their stores. Walgreens also made a
significant investment in Theranos, reportedly contributing around $140 million.

● Private Investments: Theranos attracted funds from high-profile individuals, including

prominent business leaders and wealthy investors. Some notable investors included
media mogul Rupert Murdoch, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and the
Walton family, known for their association with Walmart.

● Partnerships with Pharmaceutical Companies: Theranos entered into partnerships with

major pharmaceutical companies, such as Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline, which
provided further funding and support for the company's initiatives.

● Media mogul Rupert Murdoch, who led a $5.8 million Series A in February 2005;

● Venture capitalist and Draper Fisher Jurvetson partner Tim Draper, who remained an
outspoken defender of Theranos at least until 2018.

● Oracle Executive Chairman and founder Larry Ellison; and

● National pharmacy and retail chain Walgreens.

Following Murdoch’s investment, Theranos raised a $9.1 million Series B funding round led by
ATA Ventures and a $28.5 million Series C, both in 2006. Theranos then raised $45 million in
venture funding in July 2010.

Among the large VC and private equity firms to invest in the company were Partner Fund
Management and Fortress Investment Group, which led Theranos’ last financing event, a $100
million debt financing in December 2017, before the blood-testing company shut down.

References : CHAT GPT , www.google.com

STORY 7 - ILFS
Players :
IL&FS (Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services) was a major infrastructure development
and finance company based in India. Some key players associated with IL&FS include:

1. Ravi Parthasarathy: Ravi Parthasarathy was the former Chairman and Managing
Director of IL&FS. He played a crucial role in shaping the growth and expansion of the
company.
 2. Hari Sankaran: Hari Sankaran served as the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of
IL&FS. He was responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations of the company.
3. Arun K. Saha: Arun K. Saha was the former CEO and Director of IL&FS. He played a
key role in the company's strategy and execution of various infrastructure projects.
4. Ramesh C. Bawa: Ramesh C. Bawa served as the CEO and Managing Director of
IL&FS Financial Services (IFIN), a subsidiary of IL&FS. He was responsible for the
financial services arm of the company.
5. Vibhav Kapoor: Vibhav Kapoor was the Chief Investment Officer (CIO) of IL&FS
Financial Services. He was involved in investment and asset management activities of
the company.
These are some of the key individuals who held leadership positions in IL&FS. It's important to
note that the management and board composition of IL&FS changed over time, and there were
other individuals who played significant roles at different stages of the company's history.

Ownership/Shareholding :
The ownership structure of IL&FS (Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services) was complex,
involving various entities and stakeholders. IL&FS was a publicly listed company, and its
ownership was distributed among a mix of institutional investors, individual shareholders, and
government entities. However, the exact ownership percentages of IL&FS are not readily
available and may have changed over time.

IL&FS had multiple shareholders, including financial institutions, mutual funds, insurance
companies, and other investors. Some of the notable shareholders of IL&FS at various points
included Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), State Bank of India (SBI), Central Bank of
India, Housing Development Finance Corporation (HDFC), and Abu Dhabi Investment Authority
(ADIA).

It's important to note that IL&FS underwent significant financial stress and a subsequent
restructuring process in recent years. As part of the restructuring, the ownership and control of
IL&FS may have changed, and certain assets or subsidiaries of IL&FS were transferred to other
entities.
For the most up-to-date and accurate information regarding the ownership of IL&FS, it is
recommended to refer to official financial disclosures, regulatory filings, and relevant sources of
information.

CEO - Arun K. Saha

Board Role :
IL&FS (Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services) had a board of directors responsible for
overseeing the company's operations and making strategic decisions. The board of IL&FS
consisted of individuals with diverse backgrounds and expertise in finance, infrastructure, and
governance. Their roles included:
1. Chairman: The Chairman of IL&FS provided leadership to the board and ensured
effective governance. The Chairman facilitated board meetings, represented the
company's interests, and played a crucial role in setting the strategic direction.
 2. Directors: The board of IL&FS comprised directors who were responsible for collectively
making decisions in the best interest of the company. They provided guidance and
oversight, assessed risks, and monitored the company's performance.
3. Independent Directors: IL&FS also had independent directors who brought impartial
judgment and objectivity to the board. Independent directors played a critical role in
providing checks and balances and ensuring transparency and accountability.
4. Committees: The board of IL&FS formed various committees to address specific areas
of governance and oversight. These committees included audit committees, risk
management committees, and nomination and remuneration committees, among others.
Each committee had a specific role and responsibility in overseeing various aspects of
the company's operations.
The board of IL&FS was responsible for setting the company's overall strategy, approving major
decisions, monitoring financial performance, ensuring compliance with regulations, and
safeguarding the interests of stakeholders.
It's important to note that IL&FS underwent significant financial stress and a subsequent
restructuring process, which led to changes in the composition of the board. The exact roles and
individuals on the board may have changed over time.
● Mr. CS Rajan - Non-Executive Chairman
● Mr. Nand Kishore - Managing Director
● Dr. Malini Shankar - Director
● Mr. Gurumoorthy Mahalingam - Director
● Mr. Uday Kotak - Ex-Chairman
● Mr. Vineet Nayyar - Ex-Executive Vice Chairman
● Mr. Girish Chandra Chaturvedi - Ex-Director

SUMMARY :
IL&FS (Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services) is a financial and infrastructure development
company based in India. It was established in 1987 and was initially focused on providing
infrastructure financing and development services. Over time, IL&FS expanded its operations to
various sectors, including transportation, energy, water and sanitation, education, and social
infrastructure.
IL&FS played a significant role in infrastructure development projects in India, undertaking
projects such as roads, bridges, ports, and power plants. The company operated through
subsidiaries and associate companies that were involved in different aspects of project
development, financing, and operations.
However, in 2018, IL&FS faced a severe financial crisis, revealing a substantial debt burden and
a lack of liquidity. This crisis led to a significant impact on the Indian financial sector and raised
concerns about corporate governance and risk management practices. The Indian government
intervened to address the crisis and appointed a new board to manage IL&FS and initiate a
resolution process.
Since then, efforts have been made to resolve the financial distress of IL&FS and address the
challenges it faced. The company has been undergoing a restructuring process, which includes
asset sales, debt restructuring, and attempts to revive its various subsidiaries. The resolution
process has involved coordination between the government, regulators, creditors, and other
stakeholders to find a sustainable solution.
It's important to note that the situation surrounding IL&FS is complex and subject to ongoing
developments. For the most up-to-date and accurate information, it is advisable to refer to
reliable news sources and official statements regarding IL&FS.

Detailed Story -
IL&FS (Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services) was founded in 1987 as a non-banking
financial institution in India. The company played a crucial role in financing infrastructure
projects and was considered a major player in India's infrastructure sector.
However, in 2018, IL&FS faced a severe liquidity crisis that brought the company to the brink of
collapse. The crisis revealed a web of financial irregularities, mismanagement, and corporate
governance failures within the organization.

One of the main issues that emerged was the excessive borrowing and overleveraging of
IL&FS. The company had taken on a significant amount of debt to finance its infrastructure
projects, but many of these projects turned out to be financially unviable or faced execution
delays. IL&FS was burdened with a debt of around ₹91,000 crore (approximately $12.5 billion).
Furthermore, IL&FS had engaged in questionable practices to present a healthier financial
picture. The company allegedly manipulated its financial statements, understating its debt and
overstating its profitability. This created a false perception of stability and attracted investors and
lenders.
The corporate governance practices at IL&FS were also found to be lacking. There were
allegations of nepotism, conflicts of interest, and inadequate oversight by the company's
management and board of directors. The true state of the company's affairs was not
transparent.

The IL&FS scam involved several key issues:

1. Misrepresentation of Financial Statements: IL&FS had allegedly manipulated its financial
statements to present a healthier financial position than it actually was. The company
understated its debt and overstated its profitability, thereby misleading investors and
lenders.
2. Excessive Borrowing and Overleveraging: IL&FS had accumulated a massive debt
burden through excessive borrowing and overleveraging its balance sheet. The
company had borrowed heavily to finance its infrastructure projects, but many of these
projects were financially unviable or faced execution delays.
3. Poor Risk Management and Governance: The IL&FS scandal revealed serious lapses in
risk management and corporate governance practices. There were allegations of
nepotism, conflicts of interest, and inadequate oversight by the company's management
and board of directors.
4. Lack of Transparency: IL&FS lacked transparency in its operations, making it difficult for
investors, lenders, and regulators to assess the company's true financial health. The
complex structure of the company and its numerous subsidiaries further obscured the
true state of its affairs.

The IL&FS scam had a significant impact on the Indian financial system and economy. The
defaults and financial distress at IL&FS triggered a liquidity crunch, leading to a loss of
confidence in the non-banking financial sector. The Indian government had to intervene to
prevent a systemic crisis and undertake a major restructuring of IL&FS.
The investigation into the IL&FS scam is ongoing, and several individuals, including former
IL&FS executives and auditors, have faced legal action and are being held accountable for their
alleged involvement in the fraud. The scandal has underscored the importance of robust
corporate governance, transparency, and effective oversight in the Indian financial sector.

Here is a detailed timeline of the IL&FS (Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services) crisis with
key events and dates:
1. 1987: IL&FS is established as a non-banking financial institution in India, focusing on
infrastructure financing.
2. 2012: IL&FS starts facing challenges due to a slowdown in the infrastructure sector and
delays in project execution.
3. 2014: The new government in India emphasizes the need for infrastructure development
and initiates reforms in the sector.
4. 2018, July: IL&FS defaults on commercial paper payments, signaling the beginning of
the crisis. This raises concerns about the company's financial health and liquidity.
5. 2018, August: The government of India takes control of IL&FS and replaces its board of
directors. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) begins an investigation into the
company's affairs.
6. 2018, September: IL&FS defaults on several debt obligations, leading to rating
downgrades by credit rating agencies.
7. 2018, October: The newly appointed board of IL&FS begins the process of assessing
the company's financial position and exploring options for debt resolution.
8. 2019, February: The IL&FS group unveils a resolution plan that includes selling non-core
assets, reducing debt, and restructuring the company's businesses.
9. 2019, July: The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) approves the resolution plan for
IL&FS.
10. 2020, March: The IL&FS group reports a loss of over ₹22,500 crore (approximately $3
billion) for the fiscal year 2018-2019.
11. 2021, February: The SFIO completes its investigation into the IL&FS scam and submits
its report to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
The IL&FS crisis had a significant impact on the Indian financial system and raised concerns
about corporate governance, risk management, and transparency in the infrastructure financing
sector. The government has taken measures to address the issues and implement reforms to
prevent similar crises in the future. The investigation and legal proceedings related to the IL&FS
scam are still ongoing.

End game / Status as on date :

The end story of IL&FS (Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services) is characterized by a
series of actions taken by the Indian government and regulatory authorities to address the crisis
and stabilize the company. Here are the key developments that marked the end of the IL&FS
saga:

1. Government intervention: In 2018, the Indian government stepped in to take control of

IL&FS and replace its board of directors with a new board appointed by the Ministry of
Corporate Affairs. This was done to address the governance issues and ensure the
resolution of the crisis.
2. Restructuring and asset sales: The new board of IL&FS embarked on a restructuring
plan to reduce debt and stabilize the company's financial position. As part of this plan,
non-core assets of IL&FS were put up for sale to generate funds and repay creditors.
 3. Resolution framework: The government, in consultation with various stakeholders,
formulated a resolution framework to address the debt defaults of IL&FS. The framework
aimed to identify viable entities within the IL&FS group, categorize them into green,
amber, and red companies based on their financial health, and devise appropriate
strategies for resolution.
4. Sale of subsidiaries and assets: IL&FS initiated the process of selling its subsidiaries and
assets to repay its outstanding debts. Several subsidiaries and infrastructure projects
were sold to other companies and investors, providing some relief to IL&FS's financial
obligations.
5. Legal and regulatory actions: The Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) conducted a
detailed investigation into the IL&FS scam, examining the financial irregularities and
corporate governance failures. Legal proceedings and actions against the individuals
involved in the fraud were initiated to hold them accountable.
6. Debt resolution and recovery: Efforts were made to recover the outstanding dues from
IL&FS and its subsidiaries. Creditors, including banks and financial institutions, were
engaged in negotiations and settlements to recover as much of their investments as
possible.
7. Ongoing impact: The IL&FS crisis had far-reaching implications for the Indian financial
system, investor confidence, and regulatory oversight. The incident prompted a
reevaluation of corporate governance practices and risk management mechanisms in
the infrastructure financing sector.
While significant progress has been made in addressing the IL&FS crisis, the full resolution and
recovery process is ongoing. The government and regulatory authorities continue to monitor the
situation and implement reforms to prevent similar crises in the future.

Profit & Loss -

IL&FS (Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services) faced significant financial challenges and
reported substantial losses during the crisis. The exact figures for IL&FS's profit and loss are
subject to audits, investigations, and ongoing legal proceedings. However, here are some key
points regarding the financial performance of IL&FS:
1. Losses: In 2018, IL&FS reported a consolidated loss of over ₹22,500 crore
(approximately $3 billion) for the fiscal year 2018-2019. This loss was primarily attributed
to defaults on debt obligations and the financial irregularities discovered within the
company.
2. Debt defaults: IL&FS defaulted on several debt payments, including commercial papers
and inter-corporate deposits, leading to a liquidity crisis and significant financial stress.
These defaults raised concerns about IL&FS's ability to meet its financial obligations.
3. Write-offs and provisions: To address the mounting losses and deteriorating financial
position, IL&FS made provisions and write-offs for non-performing assets (NPAs) and
impaired assets. These actions were aimed at recognizing the true extent of the financial
distress and initiating steps towards recovery.
4. Asset sales: As part of the resolution plan, IL&FS initiated the sale of non-core assets to
generate funds and repay its outstanding debts. The proceeds from these asset sales
were expected to contribute to the financial recovery of the company.
It's important to note that the IL&FS crisis involved complex financial transactions,
misrepresentations, and corporate governance failures. The full extent of the financial losses
incurred by IL&FS and its subsidiaries is still being assessed through audits, investigations, and
legal proceedings. The final figures regarding the profit and loss of IL&FS may vary as more
information becomes available and the resolution process progresses.
Fiscal Period 2022 2021 2020 2019

Period End Date Mar Mar Mar Mar 19

22 21 20

Revenue 307.64 332.74 562.39 1239.14

Total Revenue 307.64 332.74 562.39 1239.14

Cost Of Revenue Total 197.98 232.16 386.41 934.53

Gross Profit 109.66 100.58 175.98 304.61

Selling/ General/ Admin Expenses 254.84 321.98 170.00 338.52

Total

Depreciation/ Amortization 13.55 18.99 32.19 36.75

Unusual Expense( Income) 179.43 47.58 399.45 1640.42

Other Operating Expenses Total 73.23 - 0.00 54.18

Total Operating Expense 719.03 620.71 988.05 3004.40

Operating Income -411.3 -287.9 -425.6 -1765.2

9 7 6 6

Interest Inc( Exp) Net- Non- Op -409.1 -175.3 174.60 -2444.7

Total 0 0 0

Other Net 65.95 19.85 1.94 -22.95

Net Income Before Taxes -386.3 -285.6 -406.2 -2033.3

5 5 6 5

Provision For Income Taxes 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.44

Net Income After Taxes -386.3 -285.6 -406.2 -2043.7

5 5 6 9

Equity In Affiliates 2.20 6.30 12.10 10.10

 Net Income Before Extra Items -386.1 -285.0 -405.0 -2042.7
3 2 5 8

Net Income -386.1 -285.0 -405.0 -2042.7

3 2 5 8

Income Available Com Excl Extra -386.1 -285.0 -405.0 -2042.7

Ord 3 2 5 8

Income Available Com Incl Extra -386.1 -285.0 -405.0 -2042.7

Ord 3 2 5 8

Diluted Net Income -386.1 -285.0 -405.0 -2042.7

3 2 5 8

Diluted Weighted Average Shares 13.11 13.11 13.11 13.11

Diluted EPS Excluding Extra Ord -29.45 -21.74 -30.89 -155.79

Items

Diluted Normalized EPS -15.76 -18.11 -0.43 -74.44

Minority Interest - 0.00 0.00 0.00

Gain( Loss)on Sale Of Assets - - 0.00 -6.70

Fundraises -
IL&FS (Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services) engaged in various fundraising activities to
support its infrastructure financing and development projects. However, it's important to note
that IL&FS later faced a severe financial crisis, and the fundraising efforts came under scrutiny
due to allegations of mismanagement and fraud. Here are some key points regarding the
fundraising activities of IL&FS:
1. Public Issuances: IL&FS raised capital through public issuances of bonds and
debentures. These offerings were aimed at attracting investment from individual and
institutional investors interested in participating in infrastructure projects.
2. Financial Institutions: IL&FS received financial support from banks and financial
institutions in the form of loans, credit lines, and investments. These institutions
extended funds to IL&FS to support its infrastructure projects and earn returns on their
investments.
3. Foreign Borrowings: IL&FS tapped into the international debt market by raising funds
through foreign borrowings, including overseas bonds and loans. This allowed the
company to access global capital markets and diversify its sources of funding.
4. Asset Management Subsidiaries: IL&FS had subsidiaries involved in asset management,
such as IL&FS Investment Managers Limited, which raised funds from investors for
 specific projects or investment opportunities. These subsidiaries aimed to attract funds
from domestic and international investors interested in infrastructure-related
investments.
It's important to highlight that the fundraising activities of IL&FS are currently subject to
investigation and legal proceedings due to allegations of financial irregularities,
mismanagement, and fraud. The exact details of the fundraising amounts, sources, and
utilization are being examined as part of the resolution process and legal investigations.

Shareholding Pattern - IL&FS Investment Managers Ltd.

Holder's Name No of Shares % Share Holding

NoOfShares 314032740 100%

Promoters 158333152 50.42%

ForeignInstitutions 15000 0%

NBanksMutualFunds 4215 0%

Others 23107183 7.36%

GeneralPublic 132559659 42.21%

References : CHAT GPT , www.tofler.in

STORY 8 - FTX
PLAYERS -
FTX is a cryptocurrency exchange and trading platform. Here are some key players associated
with FTX:
1. Sam Bankman-Fried: Sam Bankman-Fried is the co-founder and CEO of FTX. He is a
prominent figure in the cryptocurrency industry and has gained recognition for his
involvement in the development of FTX and other crypto-related ventures.
2. Gary Wang: Gary Wang is the co-founder and CTO (Chief Technology Officer) of FTX.
He is responsible for overseeing the technical aspects of the platform, including its
architecture, infrastructure, and security.
 3. Brett Harrison: Brett Harrison is the President of FTX US. He leads the operations and
business development efforts for FTX in the United States, focusing on regulatory
compliance and building partnerships with other organizations.
4. Tristan Yver: Tristan Yver is the Head of FTX Europe. He oversees the operations and
expansion of FTX in Europe, including compliance with regional regulations and building
relationships with European market participants.
5. Alan Howard: While not directly involved in day-to-day operations, Alan Howard is a
prominent investor and advisor to FTX. He is a co-founder of Brevan Howard Asset
Management and has a strong background in traditional finance and investing.
It's important to note that the cryptocurrency industry is dynamic, and the leadership and key
personnel of companies like FTX may evolve over time. The individuals mentioned above were
associated with FTX at the time of this response, but there could be changes in the team
structure or new additions in the future.

OWNERSHIP / SHAREHOLDING -
The ownership of FTX includes several individuals and entities. Here are some notable owners
of FTX:
1. Sam Bankman-Fried: Sam Bankman-Fried is one of the co-founders of FTX and has a
significant ownership stake in the company. He is also the CEO of FTX and has been
actively involved in the cryptocurrency industry.
2. Alameda Research: Alameda Research, led by Sam Bankman-Fried, is a quantitative
cryptocurrency trading firm. It is also one of the major owners of FTX.
3. Binance: Binance, one of the world's largest cryptocurrency exchanges, has a strategic
partnership with FTX. It has also made investments in FTX, though the specific
ownership percentage is not publicly disclosed.
4. Other Investors: FTX has received investments from various venture capital firms,
strategic partners, and individual investors. The ownership structure might include these
entities, but the specific ownership percentages are not widely disclosed.

The ownership structure of FTX includes various firms and entities. While the specific ownership
percentages may not be publicly disclosed, here are some notable firms that have been
associated with FTX:
1. Alameda Research: Alameda Research, led by Sam Bankman-Fried, is a quantitative
cryptocurrency trading firm and is considered a major owner of FTX.
2. Binance: Binance, one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges globally, has a strategic
partnership with FTX. Binance has made investments in FTX, though the specific
ownership percentage is not publicly disclosed.
3. Paradigm: Paradigm, a cryptocurrency investment firm, is reported to have invested in
FTX.
4. Sequoia Capital: Sequoia Capital, a prominent venture capital firm, is also listed as an
investor in FTX.
5. Lightspeed Venture Partners: Lightspeed Venture Partners is another venture capital
firm that has been associated with FTX.
It's important to note that the ownership structure of FTX may have changed since my last
knowledge update in September 2021. For the most up-to-date and accurate information on the
ownership of FTX, it is advisable to refer to official statements, regulatory filings, or trusted
financial sources.
CEO - John J. Ray III
BOARD ROLE -
The members of the Board of Directors are:
● Keisha Bell, Managing Director, Head of Diverse Talent Management and Advancement,
DTCC
● Bryan Bishop, CTO at Avanti Bank & Trust
● Zach Dexter, CEO of FTX US Derivatives
● Joe Keefer, Trader at Grapefruit Trading
● Jerome Kemp, President of Baton Systems
● Lucas Moskowitz, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel at Robinhood
● Bart Smith, Global Head of Strategy for Digital Assets for the Susquehanna International
Group of Companies ("SIG")
● Mark Wetjen, Head of Policy and Regulatory Strategy at FTX US

The board of directors plays a crucial role in setting the company's vision and strategy, ensuring
compliance with regulations, overseeing financial performance, and appointing key executives.
They provide governance and oversight to ensure that the company operates in the best
interests of its shareholders and stakeholders.
It's important to note that board roles can vary depending on the specific needs and structure of
the company. For the most accurate and up-to-date information on the board roles of FTX, I
recommend referring to official statements, regulatory filings, or trusted financial sources.
The role of the Board of Directors (BoD) of FTX, like in any company, is to provide oversight,
guidance, and strategic direction for the organization. The specific responsibilities and functions
of the FTX BoD may include:
1. Governance and Compliance: The BoD ensures that FTX operates in compliance with
applicable laws, regulations, and industry standards. They establish and monitor
governance policies and procedures to promote ethical conduct and transparency within
the company.
2. Strategic Planning: The BoD participates in strategic decision-making processes and
helps shape the long-term direction and goals of FTX. They assess market trends,
evaluate business opportunities, and provide input on key strategic initiatives.
3. Risk Management: The BoD oversees risk management practices within FTX. They
identify and assess potential risks, develop risk mitigation strategies, and monitor the
effectiveness of risk management measures.
4. Financial Oversight: The BoD reviews and approves financial budgets, monitors financial
performance, and ensures the financial integrity and stability of FTX. They may also
provide guidance on fundraising activities, capital allocation, and investment decisions.
5. CEO Selection and Performance Evaluation: The BoD plays a role in the selection and
appointment of the CEO. They may also conduct performance evaluations of the CEO
and other key executives to ensure leadership effectiveness.
6. Shareholder Relations: The BoD represents the interests of shareholders and
communicates with them on matters of corporate governance, financial performance,
and strategic initiatives. They may also address shareholder concerns and facilitate
dialogue between shareholders and management.
7. Advisory and Oversight: The BoD provides guidance and advice to the executive team,
leveraging their expertise and experience. They monitor the performance of
 management, assess business operations, and ensure that FTX operates in the best
interest of its stakeholders.
It's important to note that the specific roles and responsibilities of the Board of Directors can
vary between companies, and the information provided here is a general overview. For the most
accurate and detailed understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the FTX Board of
Directors, it's advisable to refer to reliable sources or reach out to FTX directly.

Summary -
FTX is a cryptocurrency exchange and trading platform that provides a wide range of trading
services for digital assets. Here are some key points about FTX:
Cryptocurrency Trading: FTX offers a variety of trading options for cryptocurrencies, including
spot trading, futures trading, leveraged tokens, options, and indices. Users can trade popular
cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), and many others.
Innovative Products: FTX is known for introducing innovative trading products in the
cryptocurrency market. This includes leveraged tokens that provide amplified exposure to
underlying assets, tokenized stocks that allow trading of traditional equities as digital assets,
and prediction markets where users can speculate on real-world events.
Margin Trading and Leverage: FTX supports margin trading, allowing users to borrow funds to
amplify their trading positions. They offer leverage options that enable users to trade with
borrowed funds, potentially increasing their potential gains or losses.
User-Friendly Interface: FTX provides an intuitive and user-friendly trading interface that caters
to both beginner and experienced traders. The platform offers advanced trading features,
charting tools, and order types to enhance the trading experience.
Compliance and Regulation: FTX maintains a strong focus on compliance and regulatory
requirements. The platform follows KYC (Know Your Customer) procedures to ensure
compliance with anti-money laundering (AML) regulations and other regulatory standards.
FTX Token (FTT): FTX has its native utility token called FTT. FTT holders can benefit from
various advantages such as fee discounts, access to exclusive features, and participation in the
FTX ecosystem.
Partnerships and Sponsorships: FTX has made headlines for its partnerships and sponsorships
in the sports and entertainment industry. They have secured naming rights for major sports
venues, sponsored professional sports teams, and partnered with prominent individuals and
organizations in the industry.

Detailed Story -
In late 2021 and early 2022, the price of Bitcoin started to decline drastically from its high in the
beginning of 2021, and other cryptocurrencies started to follow. Many major platforms started
shutting down, except for FTX, which continued acquiring competitors.

However, the rise of FTX came to an end in November 2022 when CoinDesk published an
article stating that Alameda Research -- also founded by Bankman-Fried -- was heavily
dependent on FTX's digital token FTT, with assets valued at $5 billion. FTX's balance sheet was
leaked and showed there was a lack of diversification and the two companies were tied too
closely together. The balance sheet listed $9 billion in liabilities and $900 million in assets, with
poorly labeled entries showing a negative $8 billion balance.
Alameda borrowed as much capital as it needed from FTX.
It was later found that this funding was mostly from customer deposits, and the trading firm
would borrow money routinely from FTX customer assets.
FTX and its sister companies did not produce balance sheets showing assets and liabilities,
which is standard financial reporting procedures. FTX's balance sheets were never audited
because it was a private company. Without these audits, there was no record of cash flow or
assets to show the company could cover liabilities or customer assets. FTX balance sheets
showed assets were less than Bankman-Fried had stated.
Binance, a cryptocurrency exchange platform and FTX competitor, agreed to buy out FTX on
Nov. 8 before the full extent of its problems went public. Changpeng Zhao, CEO of Binance, was
one of FTX's first investors. However, the deal fell through, and Binance cited the mishandling of
customer funds and the U.S. investigations as the reason for backing out of the acquisition.

The collapse of FTX -

In November 2022, FTX's collapse lasted 10 days, starting on Nov. 2 and ending on Nov. 12. It
began with the CoinDesk article and the leaked balance sheet. Binance initially announced it
would sell all its FTT tokens because of the mishandled and blurred funds.
The value of FTT dropped significantly, prompting FTX customers to withdraw money from their
accounts. However, other cryptocurrency platform collapses, such as Celsius Network and
Voyager Digital, had people worried about their investments.

During this mass withdrawal, FTX lost billions of dollars. Bankman-Fried ordered Alameda
Research to sell assets to cover the needed capital from the withdrawals and he also looked for
financing to cover the gap of about $8 billion between what was owed and what could be paid.

On Nov. 8, FTX blocked customers from taking money out of the platform by removing that
option online, which meant hundreds of thousands of customers did not have access to their
money. When FTX could not pay the $8 billion gap, the company filed for bankruptcy. FTX
crashed due to mismanagement of funds, lack of liquidity and the large volume of withdrawals.
Binance announced it would buy FTX to prevent a larger market crash, but quickly bailed out of
the deal as more news reports of mishandled customer funds surfaced.
Bankman-Fried used FTX funds to buy personal luxury items, finance elaborate advertising
campaigns and make political donations

How the FTX crash affects other digital currencies

While the overall demand for cryptocurrency fell after the FTX scandal, Bitcoin has made a
comeback as of January 2023 with values above $21,000. Values had gone below $16,000 in
November 2022 as the FTX news was breaking.
After the arrest of Bankman-Fried, the Securities and Exchange Commission, along with the
U.S. Congress, planned to discuss regulations of the cryptocurrency industry. If a
cryptocurrency exchange files bankruptcy, there is no backup -- unlike U.S. banks, where the
government insures the funds up to certain limits.
More cryptocurrency companies have fallen on hard times. Genesis, a cryptocurrency lender,
filed bankruptcy on Jan. 20, 2023. Genesis owed creditors nearly $3.4 billion after the downturn
of the cryptocurrency market with the FTX news.
People are already skeptical because of the stability of cryptocurrency, its security and
increased scams. The broader consequences on the cryptocurrency market are unknown, but
this large collapse in cryptocurrency's short history may deter a lot of investors.
Profit & Loss -
● FTX made $1.02 billion revenue in 2021, an increase on the $85 million it reported in
2020
● It has over one million users on its mobile and desktop platforms
● Peak 24 hours trading volume has reached $21 billion in 2021
● FTX managed $385 billion annual crypto trading volume in 2020

FTX generated $1 billion revenue in 2021, over 1000% more than it made in the previous year.
FTX annual crypto exchange volume 2019 to 2021 ($bn)

Year Annual crypto volume ($bn)

2019 27

2020 385

2021 719

Fundraises -

DATE INVESTORS AMOUNT ROUND

​ Thoma Bravo
​ Pantera Capital
​ Sequoia Capital China
​ Digital Currency Group
(formerly Bitcoin Opportunity
Fund)
-
​ Meritech Capital Partners
- N/A Not yet
​ DHVC
verified
​ ICONIQ Growth
​ Binance Labs
​ Redline Dao
​ Ribbit Capital
​ Tribe Capital
​ & 1 more
​ Greylock Partners
Aug 2019 ​ FBG Capital $8.0m Seed
​ Lemniscap
 ​ Consensus Lab
​ Galois Capital
​ One Block Capital
Dec 2019 ​ Binance N/A Early VC
Mar 2020 N/A N/A Series A
​ Lightspeed Venture Partners
​ Sequoia Capital
​ Circle
​ Third Point Ventures
​ Softbank Capital $1.0b
Jul 2021 ​ Alan Howard Valuation: Series B
​ Coinbase Ventures $18.0b
​ Paul Tudor Jones II
​ VanEck
​ Multicoin Capital
​ Sino Global Capital
$421m
​ Tiger Global Management
Oct 2021 Valuation: Series B
​ BlackRock
$25.0b
​ Insight Partners
​ Lightspeed Venture Partners
​ Tiger Global Management
​ New Enterprise Associates
​ Temasek $400m
Jan 2022 ​ Institutional Venture Partners Valuation: Series C
​ Steadview Capital $32.0b
​ SoftBank
​ Ontario Teachers’ Pension
Plan
​ Paradigm

Total Funding $1.8b

REFERENCES : CHAT GPT , www.tofler.in , www.techtarget.com ,

www.marketwatch.com , www.indiatoday.in , www.prnewswire.com

STORY 9 - BHARATPE

PLAYERS -
BharatPe, a leading Indian fintech company, had the following key players:
1. Ashneer Grover: Ashneer Grover was one of the co-founders and the CEO of BharatPe.
He has played a crucial role in shaping the company's vision and strategy.
 2. Shashvat Nakrani: Shashvat Nakrani is a co-founder and the Chief Technology Officer
(CTO) of BharatPe. He is responsible for overseeing the company's technological
infrastructure and driving innovation.
3. Gautam Kaushik: Gautam Kaushik is a key executive at BharatPe and serves as the
President. He brings extensive experience in the banking and financial services industry
to the company.
4. Nishit Sharma: Nishit Sharma is a co-founder and the Chief Business Officer (CBO) of
BharatPe. He focuses on business development, strategic partnerships, and growth
initiatives.
5. Akshay Grover: Akshay Grover is a co-founder and the Chief Revenue Officer (CRO) of
BharatPe. He leads the company's efforts in driving revenue and customer acquisition.

OWNERSHIP/SHAREHOLDING -
Koladiya had 42.5%, Grover 31.9%, and Nakrani 25.5%. (OLD)
Ownership details of private companies are often not readily available to the public, as they are
not required to disclose such information.

BharatPe has received investments from various venture capital firms and investors, including
Sequoia Capital, Ribbit Capital, and Steadview Capital, among others. These investments may
result in the ownership stakes held by the investors. However, the specific ownership
percentages of each investor or the founding team have not been disclosed publicly.

CEO - Suhail Sameer

BOARD ROLE -
The board of directors of BharatPe plays a crucial role in providing strategic guidance and
governance oversight to the company. The specific board roles and responsibilities may include:
1. Setting the company's strategic direction: The board helps in formulating and approving
the company's long-term strategy, including its business objectives, growth plans, and
expansion strategies.
2. Governance and compliance: The board ensures that the company operates in
accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and corporate governance standards.
They oversee the implementation of internal controls and risk management practices.
3. Financial oversight: The board monitors the company's financial performance, reviews
financial statements, and approves budgets. They may also be involved in fundraising
activities and major financial decisions.
4. CEO and executive leadership oversight: The board hires, evaluates, and sets the
compensation for the CEO and other executive leaders. They provide guidance and
support to the management team, ensuring that the company is effectively led and
managed.
5. Risk management: The board assesses and manages the company's risks, including
strategic, operational, financial, and compliance risks. They may establish risk
management frameworks and policies.
 6. Shareholder relations: The board represents the interests of shareholders and ensures
effective communication and transparency with them. They may be involved in
shareholder meetings and decisions related to dividends or capital structure.
The specific board roles and responsibilities can vary based on the company's bylaws,
corporate governance structure, and the needs of the business. It's important to note that board
composition and roles can change over time as per the company's requirements. For the most
accurate and up-to-date information on the board roles of BharatPe, it is advisable to refer to
official sources, the company's website, or recent regulatory filings.

● Jasmeet Singh - Head of Collections - VPOperations

● Anubhav Mital - Senior Product - Manager ManagerProduct
● Deeksha Pandey - Program Manager - ManagerOperations
● Huzefa Bohra - Marketing Manager - ManagerMarketing
● Rohit Kumar - Territory Manager - ManagerOperations
● Salonee Dhingra - Human Resources Manager - ManagerHuman Resources
● Tara Chand - Area Sales Manager - ManagerSales
● Ankit SharmaNational Account Manager - Organised BusinessNon -
ManagementSales
● Arushi Mahajan - Data Scientist - Non-ManagementOperations
● Ashish Dadhic -Technical Lead - Non-ManagementOperations

SUMMARY -
BharatPe is a financial technology company based in India that offers digital payment solutions
and financial services to merchants. Here is a summary of BharatPe:
1. Overview: BharatPe was founded in 2018 with the aim of empowering small and
medium-sized merchants by providing them with easy-to-use digital payment solutions.
2. Payment Solutions: BharatPe offers a range of payment solutions, including QR
code-based payments, UPI (Unified Payments Interface) payments, and card payments.
Merchants can accept digital payments from various sources, making it convenient for
their customers.
3. Digital Lending: BharatPe provides working capital loans and other financial services to
merchants, enabling them to access funds for their business needs. The company
leverages technology and data analytics to offer quick loan approvals and
disbursements.
4. Partnerships: BharatPe has established partnerships with various banks and financial
institutions to enhance its service offerings. These partnerships enable merchants to
access additional financial products and services through the BharatPe platform.
5. Merchant Support: The company focuses on providing customer support and assistance
to its merchant partners. It offers 24x7 customer support and has a dedicated merchant
helpline to address any queries or issues faced by merchants.
6. Funding and Growth: BharatPe has attracted significant investment from prominent
venture capital firms and investors. These funds have been used to fuel the company's
growth, expand its merchant network, and enhance its product offerings.
7. Merchant Network: BharatPe has rapidly expanded its merchant network across multiple
cities in India. It aims to reach and serve a large number of small and medium-sized
businesses in the country, facilitating their transition to digital payments.
BharatPe's focus on simplifying digital payments and providing access to financial services has
positioned it as a prominent player in the Indian fintech space. The company's growth and
success have been driven by its innovative approach and dedication to serving the needs of
merchants.

Detailed Story -
BharatPe is a New Delhi-based financial technology company that develops payment apps for
businesses. It was founded in 2018, and its services are available in more than 225 cities
throughout India. The company develops solutions specifically for offline merchants in India and
has the stated goal of being a one-stop business utility for those merchants.

The company has developed a financial solution for small businesses in various industries,
including retail, restaurants, and beauty. Users can download the app (which uses the same
name as the company) from Google Play or App Store. Merchants can then use the QR code
from the app to receive payments from their customers from unified payments apps (UPI), such
as PhonePe, Google Pay, and PayTM. The app has a dashboard where merchants can see
how much capital is available to them from sales. Another feature of the app includes the ability
to pay bills, such as electricity and water.
The BharatPe website states that the merchant does not pay any fees to use the app.
Merchants can also request a loan through the app without paying any processing fees.

BharatPe was the first company to launch interoperable zero MDR UPI QR, intending to
universalize digital payments in 2018. In just two years, BharatPe has become the #1 offline
acquirer for UPI QR transactions in the country. The company has been processing 5 crore+
UPI transactions a month with an annualized TPV of over US$ 7 bn). Today, BharatPe is a
full-stack service app for merchants across small and medium businesses, offering loans,
investments, insurance and other financial services. At present, it has an extensive network of
over 5 million merchants across the country across 35 cities in the country. The company has
plans to expand its presence to 65 cities by the end of December 2020.

Apart from enabling UPI payment acceptance from over 150+ apps, the company is the first to
partner with a P2P NBFC to offer an investment product. BharatPe offers a unique P2P Lending
product, wherein BharatPe’s merchants have the option to take 1M/3M/6M/12M loans starting
from INR 25k and going up to INR 7 Lakhs at competitive rates and payback in the form of EDIs
(Easy Daily Installments). The company’s lending business has been scaling up well and it has
already facilitated disbursement of more than 40,000 loans (worth Rs. 500 crores) to its
merchants since its rollout. It has set a target of disbursing loans to the tune of Rs. 1000 crores
by the end of the fiscal year.

BharatSwipe, launched in July 2020, is the first-of-its-kind of POS machine that allows payment
acceptance from a range of debit & credit cards without any transaction charges. The company
has already deployed ~35,000 machines and aims to deploy 1 lac POS machines by the end of
the fiscal year. BharatPe’s POS business has grown to US$ 2bn annualized transaction value in
just 3 months post the launch.

The company has received several awards and accolades for the commendable work it has
done to enable the businesses of SMEs. Recognizing BharatPe’s efforts to help digitize India at
the grassroots level, the Government of India and Ministry of Electronics and Information
Technology (MeiTY) awarded BharatPe for Innovation in Digital Payment at its annual awards in
August 2019. This year BharatPe also won a place in the CB Insights List of the world’s most
promising fintech companies and was amongst top 20 Indian start-ups. Recently, BharatPe was
declared as one of the winners at the National Startup Awards organized by the Government of
India. It was the only startup in the ‘finance’ category to be judged as a winner.

BharatPe aspires to become a full-fledged digital bank for merchants. BharatPe endeavors to
leverage the best-in-class technology to build customized and simple to use financial products
for the merchant community. The company has raised close to US$ 143 million over four rounds
of funding from seasoned and top-quality investors from across the world. BharatPe’s list of
marquee investors includes Beenext, Sequoia, SteadView Capital, Ribbit Capital, Coatue
Management LLC, Insight Partners, amongst others.

In addition to the growth of the company making the news, there has been a lot of personal
conflict within the company. One of the cofounders and former CEO, Ashneer Grover, is being
sued by several parties related to the company. The other two co-founders, Bhavik Koladiya and
Shashvat Nakrani, are suing Grover because he has yet to pay them for shares in the company
that he bought from them.
The BharatPe company itself has also filed a civil suit against Grover and a criminal complaint.
Grover is also being sued by several relatives.

End game / Status as on date :

Fintech unicorn BharatPe has accused its ousted managing director Ashneer Grover, and his
family of embezzling company funds to pay for personal expenses, including rent, plane tickets,
and skincare products, as well as funneling money to fake vendors and recruitment services.

In a civil lawsuit filed in the Delhi high court on Thursday, BharatPe has sought ₹88.67 crore in
damages from Grover, his wife Madhuri Jain Grover, and family members. It said Grover and his
family created fictitious vendors in Panipat to provide services to BharatPe, raised fake invoices
and overcharged the firm for recruitment.

The payments firm also filed a criminal complaint against Grover and his family, including
Deepak Gupta, Suresh Jain and Shwetank Jain, with the Delhi Police. BharatPe is seeking
damages from Grover and family, including a claim for payment made against the invoices of
non-existent vendors, amounting to ₹71.7 crore; payments made to vendors purportedly
providing recruitment services totalling ₹7.6 crore; ₹5 crore in damages for loss of reputation to
the company caused by tweets and other statements made by Grover and his family members.

BharatPe claimed Grover has been running a “vicious campaign" against the company on social
media.“The civil complaint is for recovery of losses BharatPe has faced because of the acts of
Ashneer, his wife and his family. This is one team—headed by Madhuri Jain Grover, advised
and guided by Grover, and then others—BharatPe is going against," a person close to the
matter said, seeking anonymity.The Delhi high court asked Grover and his family to respond to
the company’s charges within two weeks. The next hearing will be in the first week of January.
Law firm Trilegal is representing BharatPe in the civil suit filed in the high court.

“For EOW to assign an investigating officer, then investigation, charge sheet filed based on the
investigation, and for an actual criminal trial to start may take more than a year. The punishment
in the offenses that BharatPe has made out is close to 10 years imprisonment," the person
added.
 “BharatPe has been preparing to file a case against Grover and his family for six months. It took
the opinions of senior counsels and then went ahead with this. The criminal complaint has 2,600
annexures," another person added.

ASHNEER GROVER HAS DECLINED ALL THE CLAIMS AND HAS

RESIGNED.

PROFIT & LOSS -

Fintech unicorn BharatPe’s revenues jumped 169 per cent from Rs 119 crore in FY21 to Rs 321
crore in FY22. However, it also saw its losses widen to Rs 5,594 crore. The company shared
that the loss is due to a change in fair value of compulsory convertible preference shares.

In a statement, BharatPe wrote, “While our total loss for FY22 is Rs 5,594 crore, it includes an
extraordinary item pertaining to loss in change in fair value of compulsory convertible preference
shares amounting to Rs 4,782 crore. This is not an operating loss but only a change in the fair
value (PY Rs 1,342 crore). Excluding this, operating loss is Rs 811 crore (PY Rs 277 crore).” PY
refers to the previous year.

The announcements were made on December 31 when the fintech major’s annual general
meeting (AGM) took place.

Fundraises -

Announced Date Transaction Name Number of Investors Money Raised Lead Investors

Oct 25, 2021 1 ₹1B MAS Financial Services

Debt Financing - BharatPe Ltd.

Aug 19, 2021 2 ₹2B —

Debt Financing - BharatPe

Aug 4, 2021 8 $350M Tiger Global Management

Series E - BharatPe

May 10, 2021 1 ₹500M Northern Arc

Debt Financing - BharatPe
Feb 11, 2021 7 $108M Coatue
Series D - BharatPe

Jan 6, 2021 4 ₹2.5B Alteria Capital, InnoVen

Debt Financing - BharatPe Capital, Trifecta Capital
Advisors

Feb 24, 2020 5 $75M Coatue, Ribbit Capital

Series C - BharatPe

Jun 4, 2019 5 $50M Insight Partners, Ribbit

Series B - BharatPe Capital, Steadview Capital

Feb 21, 2019 4 $14.5M Sequoia Capital India

Series A - BharatPe

Oct 1, 2018 6
Seed Round - BharatPe

REFERENCES : CHAT GPT , ,www.marketwatch.com , www.propertyweek.com ,

timesofindia.indiatimes.com , www.forbes.com , www.techtarget.com

COMPANY 10 - ONECOM
PLAYERS -

Adam Cathcart , Anna Roper , Rob Downes , Tara Kelman.

Ownership / shareholding - Its largest shareholder is Onecom Group
Ltd with a 100% stake. Onecom Limited is a mature, mega sized
company.

CEO - Martin Flick

BOARD ROLE -

Onecom believes that it is vital we ensure high standards and protocols are set throughout all
operations within our business network to take account of our ESG responsibilities and ethical
standards. We recognise that ESG considerations are becoming increasingly important and
continuously evolving, hence, Onecom formed an ESG committee to ensure ongoing
improvement and commitment to integrating ESG considerations into business practices and
decision-making procedures.

Onecom takes a pragmatic, ethical and sustainable approach to ensuring our ESG values and
criteria are followed across the scope of our operations, as well as through the systems and
services we utilize.

Like other organizations in our sector, we continuously face changing customer expectations, so
this workstream strives to underpin our approach to setting ESG goals and monitoring our
performance.

Summary -

Onecom is the UK’s largest independent business telecommunications provider delivering

fixed line, mobile, Unified Communications and connectivity solutions.

It is a company that has achieved meteoric growth through substantial investment in its
people and processes – its priority being to deliver unparalleled customer service at every
level.Based in Hampshire, Onecom operates twelve regional offices and employs over four
hundred staff.
OneCom, a technology company, provides mobile voice and data, fixed line, IT
infrastructure, and unified communication solutions. It offers electronic forms,
cross-platform device management, and tracking and information management software.
The company also provides mobiles and tablets, such as Windows, qwerty, touch, rugged,
and standard phones; unified communication solutions; fixed-line and billing solutions to
businesses; and business applications, such as information and management, device
management, and electronic mobile forms.

DETAILS STORY -

Onecom is the UK’s largest independent business telecommunications provider delivering

fixed line, mobile, Unified Communications and connectivity solutions.
It is a company that has achieved meteoric growth through substantial investment in its
people and processes – its priority being to deliver unparalleled customer service at every
level.Based in Hampshire, Onecom operates twelve regional offices and employs over four
hundred staff.
OneCom, a technology company, provides mobile voice and data, fixed line, IT
infrastructure, and unified communication solutions. It offers electronic forms,
cross-platform device management, and tracking and information management software.
The company also provides mobiles and tablets, such as Windows, qwerty, touch, rugged,
and standard phones; unified communication solutions; fixed-line and billing solutions to
businesses; and business applications, such as information and management, device
management, and electronic mobile forms.

Onecom Communications, also known as Onecom, is a telecommunications company

based in the United Kingdom. Founded in 2002, Onecom provides a range of
communication and connectivity solutions to businesses of all sizes.
Onecom offers a comprehensive suite of services, including mobile communications,
fixed-line telephony, cloud-based solutions, unified communications, connectivity,
and IT support. They work with major network providers to deliver tailored solutions
to meet the specific needs of their clients.
With a strong focus on customer service, Onecom aims to provide reliable and
efficient communication services to help businesses improve productivity and
enhance their connectivity. They offer personalized support and account management
to ensure their clients receive the best solutions for their communication needs.
As a leading telecommunications provider, Onecom has gained recognition and won
several awards for their services and customer support. They continue to expand
their offerings and adapt to the evolving needs of the business communication
landscape.
Please note that the information provided is a general overview, and specific details
about Onecom Communications may vary. It is always recommended to visit their
official website or contact them directly for the most accurate and up-to-date
information.

END STORY -
Some governance measures taken by onecom

Governance measures

​ Onecom is ISO:27001 & ISO:22301 accredited.

​ Onecom is Cyber Essentials Certified.
​ Onecom has an organization-wide risk management programme in place.
We perform risk assessments at least annually which covers security,
continuity, and operational risk.
​ In terms of H&S, we monitor using proactive and reactive measures.
​ Onecom takes the lawful handling and processing of personal information
very seriously. Our internal IT systems are governed and controlled
through multiple layers of management.
 ​ At Onecom, working fairly, with integrity, and to a high quality is inherent in
everything we do. Our Anti-bribery and Corruption Policy illustrates our
commitment to complying with our obligations under the Bribery Act 2010
and ensuring that no bribes or corrupt payments are made, offered, sought
or obtained by anyone acting on our behalf.
​ We are committed to ensuring our annual financial accounts are properly
prepared, transparent, and in accordance with relevant accounting
standards.
​ We have created a Master Policy Tracker as an inventory of our internal
policies and to track the timing and frequency of their review.
​ We publish an annual modern slavery statement in line with legislation.
​ Onecom took part in a B Corp 'Diagnostic' exercise with external
Sustainability Consults to map out our current state across the three ESG
pillars and provide a strategy to identify improvement opportunities.
​ Created a Code of Conduct.
​ Have created a Supplier Assurance programme with a comprehensive
Supplier Assurance Questionnaire (SAQ), accompanied by our Code of
Conduct, to ensure a sustainable and ethical supply chain.

Some Environmental measures taken by Onecom -

Environmental measures

​ Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, we rolled out Microsoft Teams to our
workforce in order to develop our collaboration tools and facilitate virtual
meetings – therefore reducing unnecessary commuting / business journeys.
Deploying an Agile Working Policy allows our employees to have a successful
work-life balance, whilst also reducing One's carbon footprint.
 ​ We have changed our company car policy to reduce the number of cars on the
road, by funding our staff with allowances to use their own vehicles.
​ Some of our diesel fleet have been replaced with hybrid/electric vehicles, thus
reducing the release of CO2 emissions.
​ At the end of 2022, Onecom released an Electric Car Scheme for employees to
lease electric vehicles as part of a salary sacrifice scheme.
​ We conduct Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting (SECR), tracking
electricity usage, business mileage etc.
​ We implement strict printing procedures (including printer report logs) to reduce
unnecessary waste.
​ We have a Reduce, Reuse, Recycle approach to energy, water, and waste.
​ Reduced unnecessary packaging from handset suppliers.
​ We offer device recycling and utilize a company that refurbishes laptops for
employee equipment.
​ Onecom has joined the Supply Chain Sustainability School for facilities
management. The membership gives access to learning resources, case studies
and webinars across 17 key topics of sustainability.
​ Onecom has partnered with Futureproof to provide us with an intuitive
Sustainability Platform to help streamline, monitor, and track progress of our ESG
Continual Improvement Plan, for both our short and long-term goals.
​ Onecom is working with Ecologi and Nokia to plant trees in volumes relative to
particular handset purchases. Through Ecologi's scheme, Onecom's customers
have been able to plant over 18,000 trees as part of reforestation projects.
Onecom is also looking at an independent partnership with Ecologi to further
assist with reforestation and conservation projects.

Profit & Loss -

 Dec 2021 Dec 2020 Dec 2019 Dec 2018 Dec 2017

Turnover 112,887,62 89,273,586 89,869,168 87,146,319 71,132,029

4

Other Income Or 0 0 0 0 0
Grants

Cost Of Sales 84,248,593 68,792,896 66,755,054 65,334,841 55,456,929

Gross Profit 28,639,031 20,480,690 23,114,114 21,811,478 15,675,100

Admin Expenses 10,951,036 8,634,813 13,712,153 13,155,579 10,166,969

Operating Profit 17,687,995 11,845,877 9,401,961 8,655,899 5,508,131

Interest Payable 264,999 292,869 364,813 26,409 0

Interest Receivable 1,176 831 720 1,222 205

Pre-Tax Profit 17,424,172 11,553,839 9,037,868 8,630,712 5,508,336

Tax -2,493,194 -1,197,610 -1,413,178 -1,775,346 -870,364

Profit After Tax 14,930,978 10,356,229 7,624,690 6,855,366 4,637,972

Dividends Paid 0 0 149,999 2,500,000 0

 Retained Profit 14,930,978 10,356,229 7,474,691 4,355,366 4,637,972

Employee Costs 16,835,234 18,446,553 13,697,559 13,333,868 12,367,169

Number Of 372 421 383 372 356

Employees

EBITDA* 20,704,244 13,444,325 10,954,839 10,272,581 6,399,644

* Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation and Amortisation

Fundraises -

Onecom Funding

Onecom has raised a total funding of $125M over 2 rounds.

Date of funding Funding Amount Round Name Investors

Jul 22, 2019 $125M PE LDC, Ares Capital Corporation

Apr 29, 2019 $38.7M Conventional Debt HSBC

Note: Investors shown in bold are lead investors in that round

Investor Location First Round Date Portfolio Companies

Edinburgh (United Kingdom) PE Jul 22, 2019 Team17 and 189 more
LDC

Conventional
London (United Kingdom) Apr 29, 2019 SES Satellites and 401 more
Debt
HSBC

Los Angeles (United States) PE Jul 22, 2019 ChargePoint and 401 more
Ares Capital Corporation

● Onecom has 3 institutional investors - and LDC.

● Onecom does not have any Angel Investors.

REFERENCES : CHAT GPT ,

www.techtarget.com ,
www.cbinsights.com, inc42.com , en.wikipedia.org ,
pitchbook.com ,

STORY 11 - HOMIGO
PLAYERS -

Based on the available information, the key players of Homigo were:

1. Jatin Mitruka: Co-founder and CEO of Homigo.

2. Nikunj Batheja: Co-founder and Chief Product Officer of Homigo.
3. Aakash Verma: Co-founder and Chief Technology Officer of Homigo.
These individuals were instrumental in the founding and early operations of Homigo.

OWNERSHIP / SHAREHOLDING -
JATIN MITRUKA - Co-founder
Aakash Verma - Co-founder and CTO
NIKUNJ BATHEJA - Co-founder and CEO

CEO - NIKUNJ BATHEJ

BOARD ROLE -

Director Identification Name Designation Date of

Number Appointment
 22 June 2015
07213804 NIKUNJ Director
BATHEJA

10 December 2015
07303119 AAKASH Director
VERMA

22 June 2015
07213802 JATIN Director
MITRUKA

Summary -
Homigo was a startup company that aimed to provide rental housing solutions in India.
It operated as an online platform that connected landlords and tenants, offering a range
of rental accommodations and related services.

The company was founded by Jatin Mitruka, Nikunj Batheja, and Aakash Verma. It
gained attention and raised funding from investors to expand its operations. Homigo
sought to address the challenges faced by tenants in finding suitable rental properties,
as well as provide value-added services such as maintenance and community
engagement.

However, despite its initial promise, Homigo faced challenges in scaling its business
and sustaining its operations. There were reports of financial difficulties, customer
complaints, and operational issues. The company eventually faced significant setbacks
and had to wind down its operations.

Detailed Story -
The core services offered by Homigo included property search, property
verification, rental agreements, and maintenance assistance. The platform
allowed tenants to search for rental properties, view property details and images,
and connect with landlords or property managers directly. Homigo also provided
assistance in verifying property details to ensure transparency and security for
both tenants and landlords.
For landlords, Homigo offered services such as property listing, tenant
screening, rental agreement drafting, and rent collection. The company aimed to
simplify the rental process and provide a seamless experience for both parties
involved.
Homigo gained popularity for its innovative approach to rental management and
its focus on customer satisfaction. It aimed to address the pain points and
challenges faced by tenants and landlords in the rental market by leveraging
technology and providing efficient solutions.
However, please note that my knowledge is based on information available up
until September 2021, and there may have been changes or developments in
Homigo's operations since then. For the most accurate and up-to-date
information, I recommend reaching out to Homigo directly or visiting their official
website.

Homigo worked on a model where they leased properties or apartments and

sub-leased it to a customer after furnishing, by charging a premium. The
company had raised funding from multiple investors such as Mebelkart and
Livespace. It was operating close to 30 properties across the city.

The scam had come to light when many residents living in Homigo properties
were suddenly asked to vacate their homes overnight as the company defaulted
on their payments to the original property owners.

Since then all the three founders — Jatin Mitruka, Aaskash Verma and Nikunj
Batheja—all alumni of IIT-Kanpur, continue to remain absconding. Their plea for
anticipatory bail had also been rejected.

In addition to losing their homes, the tenants were also at risk of losing their
deposit and lease money. Security deposits up to Rs 50,000– and for some, lease
amounts to the tune of lakhs – continue to be stuck with Homigo. Other than
these residents, Homigo has allegedly defaulted on paying its own employees
and blue collar staff contractors.

While now, many of the customers who were on rental basis have moved away
from the case, those who stayed on lease are still caught in this legal tangle.

“For those who were staying in rent, the security deposit being two months rent,
they went for a compromise with the original owners by staying one month or a
little more for free.

Around 80 families are affected due to the company holding back Rs 20 crore.
In the case filed against Bengaluru-based co-living startup Homigo, the founders
have been accused of absconding with close to INR 20 Cr allegedly from the
deposits and rents paid by tenants residing in its 100+ leased properties across
Bengaluru. The Karnataka High Court has reserved its final ruling till the next
hearing, which is set for tomorrow, July 19.
This is the second time the founders — Jatin Mutruka, Akash Verma and Nikunja
Batheja — have knocked the court’s door against the ongoing investigation.
However, unlike the last anticipatory bail plea at the Sessions Court, Bengaluru,
advocate Raghavendra K who represents the founders has filed a criminal
petition at the High Court questioning the very merit of the investigation.

The advocate argued that it was a civil case and hence the CCB has no right to
investigate the matter. Hearing the case, Justice Dinesh Kumar has ordered an
interim stay on the investigation and asked the CCB to submit the investigation
report, one investigating officer told Inc42 on the condition of anonymity.

It is worth noting that the interim order has not yet been placed in the public
domain.

Meanwhile, ACP Laksmi Narayan, who was leading the investigation has been
transferred and Venugopal, ACP, CCB is the new case in-charge. “Being new, I am
still looking into the case and am consulting with my seniors. We have a few more
days left and I can’t comment on the case, as of now,” Venugopal told Inc42.

The multi-crore real estate fraud case has become one of the most high-profile
cases in the Indian startup ecosystem. According to The News Minute, union
minister Sadananda Gowda had also rented out an HSR Layout property to
Homigo for rent of INR 220K per month.

Founded in 2015, Homigo was an online platform to rent furnished apartments

and homes which had an inventory of more than 2,000 beds. The company was
said to be in talks to raise around INR 14 Cr – INR 28 Cr ($2 Mn – $4 Mn) by March
2019. According to reports, there were acquisition talks with Bengaluru-based
online home rental marketplace Nestaway too. However, neither deal materialized
and Nestaway had to issue a notice to Homigo users that it is not in possession
of their deposits.

Meanwhile, on March 6, Homigo employees reported that a mob of around 50

comprising owners and tenants from Homigo properties gathered at the
company’s headquarters in Bengaluru. The company was forced to close its
office premises as a result of this incident.

Inc42’s interactions with the Homigo employees revealed that the founders have
also allegedly swindled money from its employees. Apart from INR 12 Lakh in
unpaid salaries approximately, some employees had also personally invested in
the company at the behest of the founders last year. According to one of its
employees, he along with another employee had personally put in INR 11.5 Lakh
in Homigo.

On March 19, advocate Ashok D P had filed a bail plea at the Bengaluru Sessions
Court on behalf of the three co-founders. However, on March 26 the Sessions
Court had rejected the bail plea and disposed of the case.

On March 23, another bail application was filed by Chaitanya V Cotha, an investor
and director at Homigo. Cotha argued on the grounds that he is an investor in the
company and he has been falsely implicated in the case. Cotha also said he is
willing to abide by the conditions imposed by the court and sought anticipatory
bail. That petition was rejected on March 29.
In April, Homigo’s fraud cases, registered at various police stations across
Bengaluru including Mico Layout and BTM Layout police stations, were
transferred to the CCB Bengaluru at Commissioner of Police T Suneel’s order.

Owing to the General Elections, the CCB started working on the case only after
April 20.

Soon after, the founders filed a criminal petition against the Karnataka
government and Vinuthan Naik on April 23. Naik, a private firm employee and
resident of BTM Layout, had rented an apartment on a three-year lease through
Homigo in Bengaluru’s BDA Layout and had paid INR 16 Lakh. Following this,
another hearing was set for July 9. This time the court was adjourned and the
case will now be heard on July 19.

End game / Status as on date :

Homigo, a company that provided co-living spaces and services, faced challenges and
eventually ceased its operations. The specific details and reasons behind the end of
Homigo are not readily available in the public domain,
From what is known, Homigo encountered difficulties related to financial sustainability
and operational issues. These challenges may have led to the company's decision to
discontinue its services. However, without further information or official statements from
Homigo or its stakeholders, it is difficult to provide a comprehensive and accurate end
story.

Profit and loss -

 Here is a summary of financial information of HOMIGO REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED for
the financial year ending on 31 March, 2018.

● Revenue / turnover of HOMIGO REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED is INR 1 cr - 100 cr

● Net worth of the company has decreased by -9,319.24 %
● EBITDA of the company has decreased by -176.27 %
● Total assets of the company has increased by 142.94 %
● Liabilities of the company has increased by 279.74 %

Operating Revenue INR 1 cr - 100 cr

EBITDA -176.27 %

Networth -9,319.24 %

Debt/Equity Ratio -1.92

Return on Equity N/A

Total Assets 142.94 %

Fixed Assets 5,083.25 %

Current Assets 80.60 %

Current Liabilities 279.74 %

Trade Receivables N/A

Trade Payables 519.21 %

Current Ratio 0.48

Fundraises -

Homigo has raised a total of $200K in funding over 1 round. This was a Seed round
raised on Oct 12, 2015.

REFERENCES : CHATGPT , www.inc42.com,

timesofindia.indiatimes.com, www.quora.com ,
www.thenewsminute.com , yourstory.com
STORY 12 - BYJUS

PLAYERS -

Key players at BYJU'S include:

● Divya Gokulnath: Divya Gokulnath is the co-founder of BYJU'S and serves as the
Director of the company. She has played a significant role in shaping the
company's vision and expansion.

● Raveendranath Pradeep: Raveendranath Pradeep is the Chief Financial Officer

(CFO) of BYJU'S. He oversees the financial operations and strategies of the
company.

● Mrinal Mohit: Mrinal Mohit is the Chief Operating Officer (COO) of BYJU'S. He is
responsible for driving operational efficiency and scaling the company's
operations.

● Anita Kishore: Anita Kishore is the Chief Strategy Officer (CSO) at BYJU'S. She
plays a crucial role in developing and implementing the company's long-term
strategic plans.
● Byju Raveendran : Byju Raveendran is the founder and CEO of BYJU'S, a
prominent education technology company. He is one of the key players and
driving forces behind the company's growth and success. Byju Raveendran, an
entrepreneur and former teacher, founded BYJU'S in 2011 with the goal of
revolutionizing the way students learn and engage with educational content\

CEO - Byju Raveendran

OWNERSHIP/ SHAREHOLDING :
With the latest fundraise, the total shareholding of the Byju's promoters now stands at
22.9 per cent, whereas the non-promoters hold 77.03 per cent stake in it.
BYJU'S is backed by blue-chip investors including the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative,
Sequoia Capital, Bond Capital, Silver Lake, BlackRock, Sands Capital Management,
Alkeon Capital Management, Sofina, Verlinvest, Tencent, Prosus (previously Naspers
Ventures), CPPIB, General Atlantic, Tiger Global, Qatar Investment .

Board role :
The board of BYJU'S consists of individuals who provide strategic guidance and
oversight to the company. The specific roles and responsibilities of the board members
may include:

● Chairman: The Chairman typically leads the board and ensures that the board
functions effectively. They may also represent the company in external matters
and provide guidance on key decisions.

● Chief Executive Officer (CEO): The CEO is responsible for the overall
management and operations of the company. They work closely with the board to
develop and execute the company's strategies and drive its growth.

● Executive Directors: Executive directors are typically senior leaders within the
company who hold board positions. They contribute to the decision-making
process and provide expertise in their respective areas of responsibility, such as
finance, operations, or technology.

● Independent Directors: Independent directors are individuals who are not

employed by the company and are chosen for their expertise and independent
perspective. They provide objective advice, monitor the company's performance,
and ensure compliance with regulations and best practices.
Some of the individuals who have served on the BYJU'S board include:

● Byju Raveendran: Byju Raveendran is the founder and CEO of BYJU'S. He plays
a key role in setting the company's vision and strategy.

● Divya Gokulnath: Divya Gokulnath is the co-founder of BYJU'S and has been
actively involved in the company's growth and operations.

● Chan Zuckerberg Initiative: The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, founded by Mark

Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan, has made significant investments in BYJU'S.
Representatives from the initiative may serve on the board.

● Sequoia Capital: Sequoia Capital is a prominent venture capital firm that has
invested in BYJU'S. Representatives from Sequoia Capital may also have a seat
on the board.

Summary -
BYJU'S is an India-based edtech company that provides online learning programs and
educational content for students of all ages. The company was founded in 2011 by Byju
Raveendran and has since grown to become one of the leading edtech platforms
globally.
BYJU'S offers a comprehensive range of educational courses and materials, including
interactive video lessons, practice quizzes, personalized learning paths, and live
classes. The platform covers subjects such as mathematics, science, social studies,
and more, catering to students from kindergarten to higher education levels.
One of the key features of BYJU'S is its adaptive learning technology, which customizes
the learning experience based on each student's abilities and learning pace. The
platform uses data analytics and artificial intelligence to provide personalized
recommendations and feedback, helping students to better understand and retain
concepts.
Over the years, BYJU'S has garnered significant attention and recognition. It has raised
substantial funding from prominent investors, including the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative
and Sequoia Capital, among others. The company has also acquired several
educational technology companies to expand its offerings and reach.
BYJU'S has gained popularity for its engaging and effective learning content, and it has
been widely adopted by students across India and in some international markets. The
company has received numerous awards and accolades for its innovative approach to
education and its impact on learning outcomes.
BYJU'S continues to grow and evolve, expanding its user base and exploring new
partnerships and initiatives. It remains at the forefront of the edtech industry, aiming to
revolutionize the way students learn and access educational resources.
The company has received significant investments and partnerships, allowing it to
expand its reach and offerings. BYJU'S has gained popularity for its innovative teaching
methods and engaging content, making education more accessible and enjoyable for
millions of students.

Detailed Story:
BYJU'S is an Indian edtech company founded by Byju Raveendran in 2011. Here is a
detailed timeline of significant events and milestones in BYJU'S history:

● 2011: BYJU'S was founded by Byju Raveendran as an offline coaching institute

for competitive exams in India.

● 2015: BYJU'S launches its flagship product, the BYJU'S - The Learning App,
offering online video lessons and interactive content for students.

● 2016: BYJU'S raises $75 million in funding from investors including Sequoia
Capital and Sofina, valuing the company at around $500 million.

● 2017: BYJU'S acquires TutorVista, an online tutoring company based in

Bengaluru, further expanding its reach and offerings.
 ● 2018: BYJU'S raises $540 million in a funding round led by Naspers, which
values the company at around $3.6 billion.

● 2019: BYJU'S acquires Osmo, a US-based educational technology startup, to

enhance its offerings in the early learning segment.

● 2020: BYJU'S raises significant funding, including $200 million from Tiger Global
Management and $122 million from DST Global, taking its valuation to over $10
billion.

● 2021: BYJU'S continues its expansion through various strategic acquisitions,

including Aakash Educational Services, WhiteHat Jr., and Toppr, strengthening
its position in the Indian edtech market.
It's important to note that the specific dates and details may vary, and it's recommended
to refer to official sources and news articles for the most accurate and up-to-date
information on BYJU'S.

Recently, BYJU’s announced a funding round worth Rs. 1200 crore from a
foreign-based company. However, the company is yet to receive these funds. In
September 2021, US-based Oxshott invested Rs 1,200 crore in BYJU’s as part of a
Series F round, at Rs 285,072 per share. According to The Morning Context, other
investors in the round included Edelweiss (Rs 344.9 crore), IIFL (Rs 110 crore), Verition
Multi-Strategy Master Fund (Rs 147 crore), and XN Exponent Holdings (Rs 150 crore).

This came into the limelight after a report which claimed that some money in the Rs
6,300 crore private equity investment, which BYJU’s company announced early this
year, has not yet come to the ed-tech company. On the other hand, BYJU’s stated that
the company has received some of the funds while the rest of them are being tracked.

In March, BYJU’S announced raising about Rs 6,300 crore from Sumeru Ventures,
Vitruvian Partners, and BlackRock. Byju Raveendran, the Founder, and CEO of the
company was also part of the funding round and made a personal investment of $400
million.

This paves the way for suspicion of the company’s attempts to lure more and more
investors. BYJU’s is an ed-tech giant which is relentlessly expanding itself, without even
a necessary need to welcome such huge chunks of investment.

Byjus is fraud they told me take course in trail and if i don't like it so they refund money
but after buying they all are ignoring me they are not starting my refund and ignoring my
calls and no response very bad service don't buy any course from these frauds they just
ignore you. ( TWEETED A USER )

Byjus is not an ed-tech company. Actually, Byjus is a marketing company. So to

understand this, We have to understand Byjus very deeply.

So in the year 2019, Byjus did an Rs.1306 crore operating profit. Which in the year 2020
increased to Rs.2381 crore. Now let’s see about Byju's marketing spend.

In 2019, Byjus’s marketing spend was Rs.457 crore Which in 2020 increased to
Rs.1175 crore. But do you know Byjus’s major revenue does not come from this
marketing, This marketing is just to increase their brand value.

So now the question is: Where does Byju's revenue come from? So the answer is
Business development associates. In simple words, salesman. Byju's hired Business
development associates on a salary of 10-12 lakh per annum. Their base salary is 7
lakh and the remaining is an incentive.
But still, they spend 10-12 lakh rupees. On every Business development associate.
Currently, Byjus has more than 300 plus Business development associates. I know, now
you must be thinking How can 300 employees togetherly Generate 2400 crore revenue
And what does Byjus do? That people are ready to spend their life savings.

The board of Byju's, which only has founders and investors, has remained
conspicuously silent in the face of the company's myriad controversies, especially about
regulatory filings. This silence raises severe concerns about the board's commitment to
corporate governance, accountability, and ethical conduct. Time and again, we have
seen the devastating consequences of the board members' failure to provide adequate
oversight, leading to the collapse of seemingly successful companies and the loss of
livelihoods for thousands of employees.

As the Indian startup ecosystem watches the Byju's saga unfold, it serves as a
cautionary tale of the perils that can arise when unchecked ambition takes precedence
over sound governance and ethical practices.

The governance issues at Byju's are a wake-up call for the Indian startup ecosystem.
The company's board, comprising mainly founders and investors, has failed to hold itself
accountable for its actions. This lack of oversight has had severe consequences, as the
company now faces investigations for financial irregularities and employee complaints.

Byju's current predicament is a stark reminder that startups, especially those with high
valuations, must prioritize governance and accountability. Independent directors are
crucial to maintaining a company's long-term health and sustainability, and their
inclusion on boards should be non-negotiable.
India's startup ecosystem needs role models that demonstrate responsible growth and
transparency. By incorporating independent voices into the boardroom, companies can
foster a culture of accountability and ensure that they operate in the best interests of all
stakeholders.

END STORY -

Edtech major Byju’s has sought more time from its lenders to renegotiate the
terms of repayment of its $1.2-billion loan that is in breach of covenants,
Bloomberg reported on Tuesday citing sources.

The report added that the edtech unicorn is likely to sign a loan forbearance
agreement with its creditors, giving the firm time till February 10 to bargain
beByju’s is in breach of the covenants of the $1.2 billion loan it took in November
2022. It reportedly failed to provide its financial statements to the lenders
according to the stipulated deadline as part of the loan covenant. Following this,
a group of lenders who participated in the term loan pushed for faster repayment
of part of the loan.tter deal terms.

When Byju’s floated the TLB late last year, it was initially seeking to raise $500
million, mostly for funding capital requirements and for business development
purposes. However, the round size was increased to $1.2 billion due to high
demand. The term loan issue received strong demand from large investors,
including banks, financial institutions and wealth funds. The loan’s arrangers
include JPMorgan Chase & Co and Morgan Stanley.
The push towards an early repayment of the loans comes at a time when Byju’s is
in the news for multiple rounds of layoffs and questionable accounting practices,
which received scrutiny from its own financial auditor. Byju’s also came under
scrutiny from the government and the ministry of corporate affairs after its FY21
financials were delayed by almost 18 months beyond the prescribed timeline.

Byju's declared that the revenue figure did not sufficiently reflect a considerable
increase in business and that almost 40% of the revenue was carried over to
future years. A statement from Byju's declared that about 40% of the profits were
postponed to the years after.

PROFIT AND LOSS -

Edtech major Byju’s, owned and operated by Think & Learn Pvt Ltd, saw its
consolidated losses widen nearly 20 times to Rs 4,588.75 crore for the financial year
ended March 2021 from Rs 231.69 crore in FY20, as per company’s financial
statement. Revenue from operations marginally grew from Rs 2280.26 crore in FY21
from Rs 2189 crore in the previous year. Its overall revenue declined a little over 3 per
cent to Rs 2428.39 crore in FY21 from Rs 2511.77 in the previous fiscal.

The company’s overall expenses stood at Rs 7027.47 crore in FY21, up from Rs

2873.34 crore in FY20. Notably, a majority of its spending last year is attributed to
‘business promotion expenses’ which is at Rs 2251 crore, up from Rs 900 crore in the
previous fiscal.

As per the statement from the company, the Bengaluru-based firm clocked nearly Rs.
10,000 crore in gross revenues in FY22, Rs. 4530 crore of which came during the
April-July period. The company also said offline physical coaching chain Aakash
Educational Services Ltd (AESL) and higher education platform Great Learning that it
acquired in FY22 have since doubled their revenues.
Fundraises -

● 2016: BYJU'S raised $75 million in a funding round led by Sequoia Capital and
Sofina.

● 2017: The company raised $200 million in a funding round led by Tencent
Holdings.

● 2018: BYJU'S secured $540 million in a funding round led by Naspers Ventures,
Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), and General Atlantic.

● 2019: BYJU'S raised $150 million in a funding round led by Qatar Investment
Authority.

● 2020: The company secured $200 million in a funding round led by Tiger Global
Management and General Atlantic.

● 2021: BYJU'S raised approximately $1.5 billion in multiple funding rounds,

including investments from UBS Group, Blackstone Group, and Zoom founder
Eric Yuan.
Byju’s is gearing up for a $700 million fundraise at a flat $22 billion valuation, a
much-needed infusion that will help the edtech giant tide over a liquidity crunch,
according to people familiar with the matter. The fundraise, which includes two separate
deals of equity and convertible notes, might be announced in the next two weeks, the
people said, requesting anonymity. The due diligence has gotten completed after
months of deliberations with the investors, the people added.

REFERENCES :CHAT GPT , economictimes.indiatimes.com , Inc42.com ,

www.thenationalnews.com , tfipost.com ,
www.linkedin.com , tracxn.com , www.tofler.in